The schoolboard work session begins in one minute. Please take your seats. Again, the schoolboard work session begins in one minute. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]
Good morning. I now call the October 31st, 2025 administrative briefing and work session of the Marian County School Board to order at 900 a.m. Please silence your electronic devices to avoid disturbing others. Mirroring and modeling how our students begin each
day, I ask that you please pause with us for a moment of silence. Please join me. Thank you. I'll now read our board commitment statement. We are the Marian County School District Leadership Team. When we come together to work, we are
efficient, effective, and productive. Our three most most important characteristics are dedicated, transparent, and individually responsible. To work well together, we must demonstrate respect, confront reality, and be accountable. We will
always put students first. We will leave a legacy of success. Good morning, Attorney Powers. I'm going to ask that you explain the rules for this public workshop. >> Yes, ma'am. Thank you. This work session is a public meeting as defined in Florida's Sunshine Law. The board is
dedicated to full transparency in its meetings and work. In compliance with the Sunshine Law, the board has adopted uniform meeting procedures, including the right for citizens to participate. The board will allow public comment regarding any work session item listed on today's agenda at the appropriate
time. Speakers must fill out a request form located in the lobby and hand it to the board clerk. After the board and superintendent have completed their discussion on a particular agenda item, the board clerk will call the speaker's name in the order received. Each speaker
will have three minutes. As required by Sunshine Law, the board must maintain orderly conduct and proper decorum throughout this meeting. Speakers may criticize subject matter and decisions in a respectful manner, but not people. Finally, speakers must be very careful
not to violate the privacy rights of others, especially students and their family members by mentioning their names or other identifying information. Thank you for your attention to these important rules. >> Thank you, Attorney Powers. Miss Martinez Young, will you pro provide the proof of publication, please?
>> The notice for the October 31st, 2025 work session was published in the Ocala Gazette on October 17, 2025. Proof of publication has been attached to board ducks under proof of publication. Thank you. And before I turn the work session over to Attorney Powers, I just want to welcome Miss Terry Brown is
joining us today and attorney Blackman. We are grateful that you're able to spend the morning with us as we work through all of these policies. So, thank you for being here. Yeah. >> You might want to change that to a day.
>> No, to the whole day. That's probably true. All right. So, Attorney Powers, I'll turn it over to you. >> Thank you. Um just a couple opening statements. Um first we began our uh policy review of our old school board policies that have been in place for
many many years back uh prior to 2000 prior to COVID. Then after a lot of work and a lot of uh uh sessions uh we were able to finalize uh in July of 2022 our initial adoption of a complete new
policy manual. Um Florida statute indicates that policy update suggestions are brought by the superintendent and staff to the board. The board is to review, adapt, and approve those. In fact, that's one of the board's primary roles is the review
and approval of policy. Now, with education, of course, we know it's highly regulated industry and education, transportation, food service, employment law, construction law, contracts, purchasing, finance, all of those have individual regulations.
They're regulated by federal and state statutes, administrative codes. They're further directed by federal and state agency guidance. And then there's also recognized professional best practices. All of those have to come together in order to be able to create policies that
direct and guide what the rules of the district will be. So Niola is the service we use to identify and prepare those proposed updates uh in keeping with uh the board's wishes now and in keeping with th with the federal and
state guidance. One of the things that we have to do in order to do that is to make sure that um we take the suggestions that are given to us through Niola who's constantly scouring those many many thousands of
pages of new and updated laws and regulations and administrative codes and then we apply them to our unique circumstances within the district and come up with viable policy. Niola gives us a little bit of a shortcut in that
they give us proposed policy revisions and reviews. We do not always have to take those completely. However, in many cases, those are ones which are mandatory. We just have to we may need to tweak them a little bit to our unique circumstances.
In this set of policy updates, these hesitate to say they may be easy. I don't want to jinx us here, but most of these are ones that are uh were brought because many of them are required um and they're required legislative updates.
So, this isn't a review of every single policy in the district. It is however a review of those policies which have been identified which have needs for um updates because of any one of those factors which I had mentioned earlier.
Now how we have progressed through this in the past and what seems to work is we start with uh the bylaws at the very beginning. Those are the policies that indicate 01 or 000000124 those sorts of things. The bylaws
section those are essentially policies that are owned by the board. They regulate board conduct, board behavior. And so those will be ones the board will be um certainly a lot more active at. Those are not ones which staff has particularly reviewed. Those are ones
for boards review specifically. Now once we get beyond those into the 1000s 2000s we'll take them as sections like that. Now in those cases every one of those policies has been reviewed by staff. Staff has determined with Mr. Blackman
whether they wish to proceed with the update, whether they wish to modify the updated language or whether they wish to propose their own language for the board. And if you note on your paperwork that you've got in there in your books, these
have edit codes. Edit codes, we had one, two, three, four, five, and six. Those with an edit code edit code of two. You'll see it requires the district staff to complete certain sections. We'll start this out in good practice with us. uh on the bylaws sections, the
edit codes two would indicate that there is a blank essentially that needs to be filled in. There's a decision to be made. Um usually it's a multiple choice option. Do we want option A, option B, or option C? Those are all legitimate
and valid choices, but different districts choose to do things differently, and that's a conversation to have if you deem fit. As we proceed down through each of the sections, um you may find that when we get for example to the 1000s, you may
find that there are zero policies that you have any particular desire or need to discuss further having read what is in our policy update manual and what those uh revisions were. Or you may have found some errors that you wish to
correct or you may decide that there are many which need uh further discussion. Once we get done with that section, we'll move on to the 2000s and the same thing. So, I would just uh ask, of course, that everybody remember that we've got a lot of policies to get through, so we don't want to get bogged
down. If we do find one that is going to require quite a bit more um discussion or debate, it may be one that we wish to move to the end so that we can address it further. Also, you may find that uh a policy may need particular input which
um we don't have for you at the moment. Now, Mr. Blackman has gone over each of these with staff and can give most of their reasoning as to why those selections were. I can give you the reasoning as to why Niola has made their suggestions. I have that for every
single policy here and then you can use that information to make determinations about what you'd like to do. However, if one does require further input from staff that neither Mr. Blackman or I am able to give, then at that point uh we can set that policy aside and we can
have someone from staff um come to discuss and answer that with us further after discussion with Mr. Blackman. So, without further ado, um I'm going to I'm going to ask Miss um Brown, Miss Brown and Mr. for black men. I'm in in both their cases, I'm asking them to
please feel free to jump in and participate at any time. Um, and there's no reason for me to be the sole MC of this here. Uh, if they've both had a lot of work, they've done a lot of work on these. So, um, I would like to make sure
that throughout this if they have suggestions or if you have questions for them, you'll indic areas of expertise are here. And you probably already have, as I indicated, Mr. Blackman's worked with staff heavily. Terry has worked with Niola heavily and Terry has edited each of these as well. So, um, Miss
Brown, >> yes. I just wanted the board to know that, um, the book is so big because Niola had a problem connecting two board docks in an initial 2022. So, some of these policies the board may
never have wanted, but because it didn't come to you um to reject it, it is coming to you today. So, some of these policies, they're completely blacked out. Um, for instance, the drug-free work u policy
we use um under other policies on the website, our own drugfree workplace policy. So, you're going to you're going to hear probably from attorney Blackman that this is a policy we don't want we would hate we hate to even have to see
it, but they won't take it off of our draft folder until it's brought to you. So, It has to be provided to the board for the board's rejection and Okay, Mr. Blackman, any statements? >> I think you covered it well. I think
there's a couple things you'll see as we get through that there's confusion on what the rejection looks like and what we're rejecting. And I'll do my best to try I've I've spoken to Miss Brown and Attorney Powers about these issues, but we'll make sure we can address those so the board is is clear when it's rejecting something what exactly it is
rejecting. Okay, then >> let me start. >> We will we will get started. Miss Brown, >> we'll start with um bylaws 010 0. This is a basic update um
number five on Niola. So, it is a required statutory change. Basically, it's a Niola update to their definitions. Um, does anyone have any questions or what is in green is what they've added.
Oh, and of course I I didn't say this, but you've probably seen that we got the large screen up here. We're going to be making edits on the fly. So, as we go, uh, if there's anything that needs to be edited, um, Terry will be doing that as we speak. So, this will be immediately
altered right there on screen. >> And if you have no concerns with this, then I will move to the next one. >> Terry, can I ask you to can you pull your mic just a little bit closer to you? A little hard for me to hear you. >> Is that better? >> That's fantastic. Thank you. >> All right.
So if there are no concerns with 010 0, we'll move to the next one. >> Okay, >> next one is 0124. This is again basic change
and scrolling through it, they've added stolen valor um wording to this policy. Pulling it up. And I'm not sure how you want to proceed. If if
um if you're in agreement with it, I'll just move on to the next one. I >> think that's great. >> Okay. >> We'll try to do the appropriate wait time thing as we are all taught in education and then move on directly to the next. Okay.
0131 actually has some boxes that will need to be decided and it begins under policy development. Um, we need to know whether the board wants it inserted. Uh, whenever an act
of Florida legislature is enacted, which requires implementation of the act through a policy adopted by the board, the board will publish notice of the development of a proposed policy within 30 days after the effective date of the law that requires a policy and provides
a grant of rulemaking authority. So, I think it just needs to be checked. I I agree with that uh thought process. I know that that new laws have gone into effect in July and because we haven't
been able to have this rule making session, we're essentially behind on rules being implemented because our policies are behind. So, uh, all all rules and laws usually take effect July
1, meaning if we gave it that 30 days, then before the start of school, we would be in compliance with the law. So, I agree with us checking that box and making that if everybody else agrees. >> Agree. The next box is uh that needs to
be checked is a notice of a proposed policy must be published within 180 days after the most recent notice of policy development unless the legislature expressly provides a different date and that would be keeping us in line with
what you just said making sure that we're getting these. So we would suggest senior legal counsel would suggest that we do check this box. >> The next section is under the notices um a box for by publication in a
newspaper qualified under Florida statute chapter 50 in the affected area or on a publicly accessible website. Um and we pretty much are doing that now. So I will check that. But do we need to
continue? I have that noted later um in my notes, but do we need to continue spending $7,000 a year on the notification in the newspaper if we can just put it on our website? >> Well, this indication this indicates
that uh it's in a newspaper that qualifies under chapter 50 in the affected area or on a publicly accessible website as provided in 50.0311. And so there there are certain websites which will qualify. Now for
certain things um our our website qualifies for others it has to be one which is um a combination of all intergovernmental. >> Can you expand what certain things means? >> Yes. For certain legal notices, it's
would be required that we either continue to post them in the newspaper or that there be a coalition of local governments which have a single central source um website or that we publish
them in the Florida Register. >> I guess my question to Lor's uh Chair Conrad's point would be is there a more cost-effective way to do this? What we're doing with this policy is ensuring that we have the maximum flexibility under statute to do everything that's
allowed. So there is still discussion over whether certain um types of advertisements are permitted. You have you have whether certain types of um of advertisements
are permitted to be via website only. in an abundance of caution when it comes to legal notices. We're continuing to do those within the we're continuing to advertise them for rulemaking development for legal notices. We're continuing to do those on the newspaper
of general circulation because we do have one. Well, and I get that. I get like the things like this or um public hearings and like those kinds of things to be a lots of caution, but are the other governments paying the local newspaper for their for their regular
publication of their meetings? >> Dr. Campbell. >> So, current practice within Marian County has been yes, the other governmental entities are using the newspaper, a newspaper source. However, recent conversation, the county is trying to take this on to be the
publicly facing website and that is the direction that Marian County is going to go. So, as far as staff time, it would still be the exact same amount of staff time because our staff would then be coordinating with Marian County to make sure they would get the legal notices
correct as opposed to working with the newspaper. And so I I don't think they actually have the channel set up right now like how the newspaper has it where I believe Miss Martinez Young I think she can upload it into the newspaper and then get the notice back. I I'm not sure
how the county is going to work on all that yet. Like they're still hashing it out so that other governmental entities would be able to participate in that. But they're trying to pursue being that entity. I think just for the purpose of today, checking this box means we can do
either. And so as we pursue budgeting in the future and the county gets their challenges worked out, then we can potentially pursue that. But for right now, checking this box gets either one of those options available to us. >> Our current policy requires publication
by newspaper. Um, this expands to be able to allow the maximum flexibility that we have under statute. Correct. And by checking the next box, it uh also allows uh radio stations
um whose signal is received in the district at a reasonable number of times daily during the 7-day proceeding the date. So, um do you want that checked? >> Another opportunity. Yes. Go ahead. Go ahead. >> It's another opportunity.
>> So, if we do that, so let's talk about the challenges. Sorry. Are we able to have open discussion today? I'm sorry for that being >> sorry. Thank you. Because again, this would fall under the shall category. So if we check that box, that means that
that now makes us also put the announcements on a radio station. We could change that shell to May. >> Okay. But then that changes the whole concept of the policy because if we just say all notices pertaining to policym
may be published then that frees us up to the possibility of not publishing at all. >> Correct. >> Which I I would love to just publish on our website. >> Yeah. We're not going to be able to do I mean based on statute now we won't ever
be able to be that one source that is always at least that that's currently the way the statute reads to my >> but then changing to may >> I would also say the the balance comes from between the um the when it says it
shall be pro published if you look at the end of the first check box I'm sorry the the the the first one that was up earlier and this one th those are ores. >> So it it gives us for example if for some reason we were unable to provide
um textual representation within a newspaper or website. Um we could do it via radio. I don't know that could be something in emergency operations that comes out. >> It was an or I'm fine with adding the or there. >> I'm saying this is a menu of options.
>> Yes. That doesn't preclude us or allow us to do that. >> The shall seems to apply to you're going to advertise it. >> Right. Right. >> The options are A, B, or C. >> Do we need to put another or in there? >> Instead of the semicolon, I think I
would have or. >> Yes. Yes. >> So, an or after the semicolon, I guess. >> Okay. And then the last that's that is the last one.
>> So are there any other concerns? The next one is 0131.1. This also has revisions that will need to be looked at. Chair, personally, I appreciate that we are giving the autonomy to the schoolboard attorney to correct any
scriers errors and those kinds of things. And that's that's how I read this uh to identify and and take on technical changes because some of these you'll see are are just changing his or her to them or something like that. And
so that could have been done without us having to go through all of this. Agreed. >> Okay. So we'll move on. >> The next one up >> 0131.01 01 technical corrections. That's
what we just did. Now, >> um election O or 0143. >> Thank you. >> This is a technical correction. It includes addition of two legal references. So, it does, however, I've
got a two listed. So, it does indicate that we have to make a selection. >> We We do not >> We do not. Okay. All right. Did you want to do uh only the ones with the two or move straight through? >> 0143
>> 0143.1 residence areas. >> Is that what we just did? >> No. >> Okay. >> And this is a statute change. So yeah, this >> Okay, >> this is good. >> So essentially anyone right now who wanted to run for office doesn't have to
live in the residence area. They have to live in the residence area once they're being sworn in. >> Since when? >> This is a new statute change. >> Oh, I thought I thought you were saying that was the existing rule. >> No, I'm saying this is the new language,
>> the language in green >> and that changed in state law. >> It did. >> Yeah. >> Which is reflective of the county commission. >> Correct. >> Going to say. Yeah. The next one is 0155 committees. This
one does require us to decide which boxes you want. >> The only revision to this bylaw is a removal of a sentence that inadvertently suggested that a committee may meet in executive session. Executive session is reserved for collective bargaining discussions between superintendent and
school board. >> So we just have to have options. >> Yes. Personally, I don't like number one. I don't I don't want us to have >> a number specified that committees can't be smaller or larger than it. Personally,
>> I agree with that. I don't like it >> because we never know like what would be the reason why we would need to have any committee. >> The second one you may or not wish because uh it may be that you wish to have individuals appointed by each board member. Um
>> and of course I think the next one is needs to be true. A member may request or refuse appointment to a committee. >> Agree with that. >> Refusal to serve on a committee should not be grants for grounds for lack of appointment to another committee. If you don't want to serve on one, it doesn't
necessarily preclude you from another. Um, and the next one, >> the board committee, >> each board committee shall be convened by a chairperson who shall report for the committee. >> That probably needs to be true, but it's going to then need to go into bylaws in
certain committees. So, >> but if we grant you the authority to make those kind of technical changes, we won't have to meet again to do that. >> The chair shall appoint To be honest, I don't understand this this uh I mean other than if that's it's
it says the chair shall on point and has a colon. Now I >> at an organization >> it's either at the organizational meeting or as soon as the organizational meeting is practical practical >> every year like in November you pick your committees again. >> Usually it's the committee members that
appoint their chair of the committee. >> That's not what that means. They're they're saying during your >> organizational Oh, it's right. It's it's It's the timing >> which is probably a good thing because we have not been perfect about doing that. So it really and I know I think Chair Conrad is intending to have it
prepared for the next chair to do but really we should choose a chair and then we should immediately discuss committees. >> I'm good with that. I I am prepared. >> So at the >> only the only caveat I might say is that if for some reason it doesn't get done at the organizational meeting then we're
uh for whatever reason then we're we're not in compliance with our own policy. So >> then the next box >> you could you could we could combine the two to say at the organizational meeting or as soon thereafter as as practical. So that gives us more flexibility.
>> I'm good with that in case there's a there's a question or something has to be researched or it gives us a little time to >> I think we definitely need the flexibility >> soon thereafter. I mean, an election year is challenging because if the seats change, you know, the individuals are
it's already a lot when you're walking in on your first day to the meeting. So, and then also having to decide what committees you're going to be on, >> especially the new people because they don't know, you know, >> they didn't have last box indicates or a majority of the
members present. >> Sorry. Keep going down. So I was trying to see what that bled into. So it said such minutes shall also be available for inspection by the public.
The law requires committee or subcommittee give public notice of each meeting as well as prepare, file, maintaining >> um ad hoc committees may be created and changed any time by the chair or majority members present at any meeting in which the need for committee becomes
evident. So um I think that again flexibility not just the chair if uh we're going to create an ad hoc committee majority members present at any meeting could also appoint and then or the superintendent with the approval of the board. I think being able to have
a designate like that is important as well. So I would suggest checking both those boxes unless anybody else has any other reason why you would disagree. Okay, >> Terry, just one question. At the at the top of that second page, members of the
board to standing committees where they shall serve a term of one year. >> Yes. >> Um, did we agree on that? >> Is everybody in agreement? >> We shall. >> But we shall. But what happened? Like I'm just thinking about where um the
code of conduct committee ended up meeting at a time where Dr. James was not available and so we had to switch things up. >> Um >> well they I I I would I would say that that person can of course then be substituted. >> Okay. >> If if need be limit
>> um I I don't believe so. I just think it's it's it's that that person will be there for one year that term >> and then if if they need to be you know either either replaced or temporarily substituted during a interim period then they could be. So what
>> again by action of the board >> what that says is the chair shall appoint members of the board to standing committees where they shall serve a term of one year. >> Okay. And then the second one is the chair shall appoint and you've corrected that. Okay.
>> Okay. >> All right. So is everyone good with this one? >> All right. I just wanted to clarify uh if I may that if a board member wanted to continue for more than than one year then that option is still available,
right? >> Okay. >> Yes. It's >> because I was just thinking I served on the value adjustment board for six years. >> Yes. >> And many thank you for that. >> Yes. >> 0164. >> I'm not sure what I'm not I feel like
someone else is going to need to do that ne this next year because I don't I don't even know what that is if I'm being honest. I didn't know what it it was either and Matt Mlan was very gracious and onboarding me. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That transition was helpful because when you've done it for so long
it's like you hold the knowledge. >> Yeah. >> It's just Yeah. >> So Niola has rewritten 0164 regarding notice of regular meetings, hearings, and workshops. Um, and these revisions incorporate language
from uh, statute 12525 and 101.372 regarding the method of providing public notice at regular meetings, hearings, and workshops. We have to pay careful attention to the new drafting notes at the beginning of the policy template there. So,
>> and we we'll need to mark these both because they'll be consistent with the policy we did earlier. >> Okay. >> And this is just a prediction but I think before too long um all of the governmental entities will probably be
moving away from printed newspaper. I mean, you you look at the major newspapers, including, you know, the AJC up in Atlanta. I mean, they don't even have a paper newspaper anymore as of just recently. >> Well, and since the legislature has
given sort of broad guideline status as to a central website. They don't want every every agency to have its own website that you have to check. So, they want a central standard much like the newspaper was, >> right? A lot of how effective that's going to be depends upon the entity that
is running that, how they run it, how coordinating they are, how cooperative they are, how timely they are. So if it becomes a pain to deal with or it becomes something that is not easily traceable or there are errors or things
like that, then that's something that other other agencies are going to have to back away from. So if if the county ends up running it or whoever ends up running it, it needs to be done in such a way that and I'm sure they will.
>> Would we would we then pay that would we then pay the county to manage a fee of entity? >> Those are other questions that remain >> right. Oh, there might be. Well, and there there is something to be said for an independent of government way to
ensure you are sharing with the public because who then polices the governmental entity that is overseeing the oversight? I I mean seriously there there's a level of transparency that potentially could
be missing. I understand the need and the cost savings that it presents. However, for the public's purposes, I mean, who polices the governmental entity to ensure that they actually are publishing all the notifications that
should be currently published? It's it's just an interesting conversation. >> It is. >> It is. >> Those pesky checks and balances. >> There you go. >> So, are we good with this one >> for now? I guess >> Harry, keep us on task. >> Clearly, we're in transition with this one. >> We digress.
The next one is 0165 >> school board meetings. >> In this case, they just deleted language that required meeting materials to be published in electronic form seven days before each meeting. Florida law only requires the agenda be published seven days before each meeting. So this
deletes the language indicating that publish that written materials um relating to it have to be uploaded in electronic form seven days. >> That's interesting though. So then a stick a sticking point for me as many of us know has been the editing and then
later upload of an edited item within a seven day window because it has been historically that all of the information has to be publicly available seven days prior to the meeting. So when we change an item two days before the
meeting, someone I I see it personally as historically being violating the expectation, but what I hear this be saying is that that's no longer the case. >> Correct.
>> Okay, that's good to know. >> Dr. Burr took a very big breath. Oh, and when I think it was when Dr. Mayor was superintendent for the work sessions, no uh public facing documents
were uh uploaded ahead of time and um it was someone you met with recently that brought that to to my attention as a new school board member and we we got at least that fixed. Now, alterations to um
items, that's part of the dynamic action of of what happens in real time, you know, behind the scenes. And I don't know, there's two ways to look at it. As a citizen, I would rather see the most up-to-date information with something
that says updated and the the date on it >> um than be looking at old stuff and then be then have it be said differently at a meeting. Can I also add though, and this is probably not necessarily policy, although I wouldn't be mad if it got put into policy, that if we update an item
within the seven days, it must go into discussion. Like I I think it is just a complete lack of transparency to update an item and still bury it in consent. Like if we're going to update an item and change something,
it needs to be in move automatically moved into discussion so that we are at least overly transparent about the fact that after publication the item changed and you know in those updated that updated document as as board member Thrower said is labeled correctly so
that people can find it. That's just I mean as a board member I'm certainly going to always ask that. So, >> but now if they don't have to have the documentation there until two days prior, then essentially everything would
be in discussion potentially. Is is that what I'm >> No, I think our practice needs to be that all documents are uploaded at seven days. I don't think we need to change our practice. We us changing our practice to only two days prior is going
to make it look like we are trying to hide stuff. >> I agree. >> Right. to the end. >> So we'll make this >> correct. >> So why are they changing this to two days? For is it for convenience or >> No, it's it's frankly it's to recognize
the fact that unlike private businesses. what we do everything h it works on a cycle that puts us to get anything done requires notice requires posting requires and sometimes that's remarkably
difficult and sometimes it takes longer in many cases it takes longer than we would be able to do in order to make certain turnarounds I'm just thinking of certain real estate transactions we had recently and and other factors like that and if we are if we are wedded to an
absolute of not only do you have to notice it seven days in advance which also requires that you coordinate that noticing u you know with newspapers in some cases where it's where it's the advertisement of a meeting but in the case of the publication of the agenda
doing all of those notices is one thing that's that's hard enough. Then also you may have a document which you recognize is may may have may not be complete. It may have additional information it needs to be supplemented with or may have errors which need to be corrected. If
you found yourself now on, you know, the initial document, what our practice has been was the initial document. Until very recently, the practice was you get it up there seven days in advance. However, once it's up there, it's like a placeholder item. Edits can be made so long as the originals remains
>> and you drop in a new that's edited and that doesn't that doesn't impact anything. So, if you need to edit it three times after you've posted it seven days in advance, fine. Each one goes up as a new a new document with the upload showing the date, that's acceptable. Um,
and that can continue to be our practice. However, we don't want to run we know because it happens, believe me, nearly with every agenda. We know there are times when trying to get something on that is an important item, we run
into having to have a discussion and debate over well, it didn't quite hit seven days and or or oh my gosh, I've got to make an edit now and everyone's up in the air about what do we what do we do and how do we do it and and let's just cancel it all together which further puts the things back. That's
that's very difficult. So not having it something which is required by policy but is is an aspirational um goal for us and is something that is that is enforced at agenda review by the board chair and superintendent I think is probably wise.
>> No, I completely agree with everything you just said. I think the the pressure is now slightly decreased, but the standard operating procedure in this district in my opinion as a board member should be that at publication of seven days prior, we are uploading every
possible document we have as well as the agenda and then if an item changes or we add an item later, my board member request will be that that it automat that item is going to be moved to discussion. So we if you don't want to entrench it in policy that's fine but
please know board I am going to move all of those items as I do now to discussion so that it is incredibly transparent to the community after publication because sometimes people just go on the day of publication they look at all the stuff they download what's important to them
and then they don't necessarily revisit until the meeting and so I think it is very important that we don't just upload stuff meanderly throughout the seven days and keep it in consent because it can get really buried in consent. So that's just my thought on it. I appreciate what you said and I
absolutely agree. It provides some flexibility now which is great but you know ultimately that's my expectation >> and and I agree with most of that except for occasionally there are just some very minor edits just like we gave
attorney powers permission to you know fix clean it up and so sometimes a presentation is uploaded and then there's a grammat grammat grammatical error or there's you know numbers have been reversed or something like that and so I I don't feel that's reason to move
something to discussion. Personally, I think we're just cleaning it up. The item as a whole, the content has not changed and so I don't think those type of changes need to be moved to discussion. >> Yeah. And that's fine. So, it can be board member discretion as it is now.
>> Dr. Brewer, >> sure. I I agree that we would we need to continue our practice. We've done really well with the 7-day um uploads. Um, but I do agree that if there was content that needed to be changed, if there was numbers or there were real if there was
an important part of the content or the presentation that was changed, I we could move that to discussion. But some things if it's formatting, um, we could just notify the board that there was a revised document that was uploaded. >> Oh, sorry, Attorney Pos, your your team
is also very good at notifying board members. This was just a, you know, letting us know. So, it's not that you don't know what that change is going to be, but you know, >> the title was wrong or you there's just some basic things that don't change the content at all. So, they they always
share that with us. >> I just I I we are in the middle of a superintendent search. And so, what what is a practice right now and what is the way of work right now could look very different in six months. And so I I want to make sure
that the board maintains its power over this process because a different superintendent may different strokes for different folks. They may say, you know what, actually no, we're just going to put that agenda up there and everything will be up there by the 48 hours beforehand. And so, but that
that is a reality. And so that is my concern. And I guess we can just bring this policy back up if work changes. But I think it's important to keep that context. >> And I would also say that one thing that I very much appreciate that we do in this district is the fact that uh when
we are uploading documents, if there is an edit to be made, I've always and consistently seen a document is not switched on the agenda. the original document remains and then a second document with a new
title that indicates the date or the edit or whatever is put up there. That then shows a flow and it shows a process and then somebody can track that process. They can see what the differences are. So that's critical because the one thing that would be and
I've never seen it happen here. The one thing that would be terrible is to have a document that somebody reads seven days before >> and then it's gone and what's placed in its place is something that has alterations because that that in my mind would be deceptive. So I've never seen
it happen in this district and I'm I'm glad for it. So um and of course I think what Dr. James is saying is of course prudent. We need to continue the practice. I see that between the board chair and the superintendent at agenda review. Um
those are items which are probably given circumstances best discussed there and then if there is something that uh requires you know that there is a substantive change and a board member wants to pull it that's always a board a board member's uh um
>> perview to do so >> right >> I went ahead and marked all the boxes to be consistent with how we discussed those on the other one >> I want to ask Miss Martina Young do you have anything that you want to add since You deal with this on a daily basis. >> No, I agree with everything.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Okay. Next. >> So, we did not want to add any other wording. No. Okay. >> The next one is a basic update
to 01651. 01651 agenda. No, that's what we just did, right? >> No, >> this is different. >> Okay. 01651 agenda. This was deletion of language requirement. Nope. That's >> Yes.
>> 165.1. >> It's still the sevenday >> a seven-day edit. >> And it's deleting that because the A says along with meeting materials. Is that correct? Okay, I help me out here because Okay,
you're deleting at least seven days before. Correct. Yes. >> So, the agenda along with any meeting materials available must be published on the board's website at least seven days before must be published before the event because there might be meeting materials which are then added later. If
there's language you want to put in there to preserve what you were talking about, we can do that. Otherwise, we leave it out and we maintain flexibility. That's up to you. Just maybe a statement about previous versions shall remain to indicate flow.
Um, I'm just thinking about for someone that's reviewing the agenda, we want it to be as easily as easy to follow and comprehensible as possible. You could also leave u I'm sorry uh you
could also leave at least seven days before the event. Um and then add a a comments that says something along the lines of uh uh provided that any updates or edits uh made thereafter be
noted as such. Well, I feel uncomfortable deleting the seven days because while we don't have to have I mean what it's saying is essentially you have a copy available to people but a is saying electronically and I want to maintain a policy that we are electronically publishing our agenda
seven days prior to the meeting. >> Well that's already up there that that's in the second paragraph. >> The agenda uh may be received at least seven days before the event. >> That's not what that says in my opinion. Then the agenda along with must be published on the board's website. Seven at least seven days.
>> Yep. >> A is along with a meeting materials. >> Okay. Delete. >> The agenda absolutely is seven days prior. But the agenda along with the meeting materials says >> do we want to leave that? >> And I had this marked as saying why are
we making this change? So to your point, I mean that's what >> So we will reject the change. I would like to reject the change and if to to attorney P's point if we just add in kind of to say um I'll put it back up. There you go.
>> At least seven days provided that any updates or edits made thereafter be noted as such. That at least gives opportunity for, you know, as we are already doing, but it'll be in policy. So people who are sticklers like me won't have a fight to
fight. >> Put put before the event. Before my green seven days before the event. Yeah. Comma. And then delete before the event afterward. See? >> Oh, yeah.
>> Yeah. Delete. Delete the Yeah. >> Oops. Well, and and I mean I understand the whole conversation here. I'm just looking at B then because it says so as to allow proper time for the member to study the agenda. If there are no
supplemental documents included in the agenda, we would just have an item that potentially could have no description whatsoever if we don't >> still require that seven days. That that's my understanding of why we need
to continue to leave that seven days in. >> I agree. And and if I'm reading everything here correctly, what this still does is make sure the agenda must be published seven days in advance. Whatever item, whether it be a placeholder item or a mostly finished
item or an item that is expected to be perfect but is may have a mistake is already up there at the sevenday mark. And then if anything is added thereafter, it's not banned from being added. However, it must be noted. >> Right. >> And
>> correct. >> Yeah. Okay. >> All right. Agree. That that concludes that. >> Okay. We're on to the next policy, which is a uh 0165.2 regular meetings.
And why is it completely struck? >> That was added into 0164. >> Is that a number four? >> That is a number four. >> You want to explain what number fours are? >> Number four um is a policy that has been
rescended by Neola. >> Okay. >> So what they did is they took that little paragraph and they added it into 0164 >> 65. That's still there. It's just >> got it. >> So all it's now putting every schoolboard meeting whether it's emergency or regular or anything all in
one policy. >> Now the same is true of the next two policies. They're also number fours. Uh >> perfect. >> 165.3 166. >> They're also number fours. I don't believe we need to discuss further. >> Nope. >> Correct. >> Uh
0166 is the same. >> Next one. >> 0169.1. This is a two which requires some disc discussion. >> Well, I think we want to talk about this anyway as board >> public participation at board meetings. >> Now, um here's some history. On October
8th, 2024, uh, in Moms for Liberty, Bvard County, um, versus Bvard public schools, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit rendered a decision in favor of Moms for Liberty, addressing, among other things, the ability of school boards to restrict
certain speech at schoolboard meetings. The decision in Mom's for Liberty um emphasizes the importance of the presiding officer receiving appropriate training regarding implementation of the board's policy on public participation. As is clear in the ruling, when
subjected to a legal challenge, courts are likely to scrutinize each time the presiding officer limits speech or otherwise prevents a member of the public from providing input during a board meeting. Importantly, presiding officers should confer with councel for the school board to identify when the
public input may be considered obscene or a true threat and thus permitting a restriction. We've recently seen this in other counties around the state as well. Generally when someone comes up to speak uh unless there is something rather
extreme they need to be permitted to speak and um let them have their time and move on. Uh if it reaches into disruptive then that's another factor but um that is something that the decision but prior to restricting the
speech decision should be made uh um with council and discuss. There was a whole section on this in our mandatory four hours of ethics training and it was very very interesting about how to
manage through those contentious types of meetings and and pointing back to your standing policy which better be there you know to remind the speaker of you know yes and you're more than
welcome to say what you need to say but please keep in mind as you continue this is your policy you're getting this time back that I just used to remind you please keep going it was and it was all based on that decision so >> and this does not mean that we can't
enforce the quorum >> correct >> but what it does mean is that uh for example uh unpopular speech or um uh speech which may be critical or speech which may be even harsh the fact that it's referred to or directed at if if
someone were to come up and say, you know, uh, hey, schoolboard attorney or one board member, I think you're doing an incredible job on this. We, if we would allow that, we also have to allow someone to come up here and say, hey, you individual, I think you're doing a
really poor job and, you know, can say ugly things, too. So my question would be referencing public comment from within the last six months. Can we say something about a person that's
sitting up at the deis that is um what's the word I'm looking for? Um slanderous. >> Sure. Thank you. >> No liel and slander are still protected speech. Sorry unprotected speech. So then how do we go about making sure in
our policy we have enshrined that or is it already there? >> Well, one of the things you'll note that we have in our in our procedures uh in our board procedures and one of the things I read out is that any statements directed at an individual must be um
given 24 must be put in writing 24 hours in advance. And that is specifically because of a Florida statute which talks about liel and slander because it's being publicly transmitted via in this case YouTube. So um in those kind of cases if there is a statement that's
going to be made regarding an individual person they're required to have given that 24 hours in advance. So if there is up there and it's lielist speech or slanderous speech. The question is also we don't want to be a courtroom during five minutes of com public comment about
the fact that whether something is in fact liable or slander or whether it is just not very nice. >> Well, I think calling someone a town drunk or a other derogatory term would be liable or slanderous. I >> so my question would be what policy or
procedure are we going to have in stone as the public continues to to be at times >> contentious >> contentious and more contentious at times and so I want to make sure that we have set
procedures so that the moment someone makes a liable or slanderous statement we have a procedure that is that is what I'm looking to accomplish with this >> let me add on to that real quick. Um, in your instructions to the community for public comment, that is you state that,
correct? >> Correct. >> And so is isn't that enough that covers that? >> So then what happens when the person does it and they just get to keep talking because we are like scrambling because we don't know what to do. >> They don't we we that would be for the board chair or for myself
>> to temporarily interrupt them, stop, give them admonition and then allow them to continue. Um if the admonition if if they continue and have not changed, then it's at that point we stop. We can
discuss what specifically we're talking about, we can make it a little bit more of a point and then if it if they're then not following the rules, if they're going to continue on, we can be we can say your time's expired and have them sit down. Now, it's only then if they become, you know, further disruptive or
something like that that they could be removed from the meeting. Um but we Of course, out of how many times are people getting up here in even people who are emotional and even people who are who are, you know, have some, you know, valid concerns and invalid concerns or
whatever it may be. But in the course of, you know, five years of me witnessing these, you know, we've had a handful of ones that are that are just kind of over the top. in which case typically a stop and a reminder uh and a
stop and a redirect has been effective. I know that we are eventually going to encounter people who can't be redirected in which case you know we can either we can either listen to what they have to say if it's not directly lielist or
slanderous if it's just you know offthe-wall or we can ask them to sit down. The the point is we've got to be careful at limiting what people say as is appropriate. Government should this is a public forum. It is as
close to the traditional public forum that people have for expressing their constitutional rights and getting up here and and redressing their government. They should be able to speak freely. However, speaking freely also does not mean you get to yell fire in a crowded theater. It doesn't mean you get
to liel or slander people. So those are distinctions. We just don't want to act quickly in the heat of the moment. >> Yes. And if I may expand on that, it was made very clear at this training that if if if a public speaker makes a comment
that is liableist, potentially lialist or slanderous, it can't be a one and done it, it won't hold up in court. In other words, for anyone to bang their gavvel and say, you know, you're done here. there there has to be a couple of warnings and a polite opportunity for
them to get themselves together and then if it's still not happening then there's a much more defensible grounds to say you know we're going to have going to go ahead and conclude your time >> I will point out that this policy has nothing to do with compliant with with
uh with actions I mean if if if someone's actions are disruptive threatening um any of those things including some speech If it's if it gets to the point of being, you know, abusive, threatening, >> or insightful,
>> insightful, those sort of things are are things that we can we have a little bit more leeway. But we have to be able to define and clarify that indeed that's what it was. You know, that that that someone's actually, you know, doing something physically threatening. uh at that
point, yes, it can be shut down or something that is that is um you know, beyond the pale, I guess, so to speak. And then a little bit of this also has to deal with the fact that uh you know, occasionally I get people up here that just they're not speaking on any topic
that has anything to do with the operation of the school system. They're here to advertise a product or they're here to advertise a political campaign. In which case, if they can relate it back in some way to the school system, which isn't too hard, we let them speak for their three to five minutes. If, however, they're just up here to, you
know, pitch their new form of golf ball, then we're they better be talking about school athletics while they do it. So, >> okay. >> So, so I just had a crazy thought because you're talking about their their ability to get up there and say what
they want to say. And so what happens when we get the person that comes up here, they really don't, it's really nothing about anything we're talking about. They just stand there at the podium and say, "Uh, superintendent, f you." Uh, attorney powers, f you.
>> Dora, f you. What What do we do then? >> It's It's in here. I mean, so if we could take this I mean, if we could take this policy like >> page one, page two and go through it, then I think we'll get to all the things that everybody has questions about. >> Good. >> So, page one, my question in the I guess
third paragraph is what is special order agenda? I I don't know what that is. It's just above the pink line that's been struck through I that said items wherever found on the agenda, blah blah blah. It says, "But does not generally
include items on the special order agenda." What is that? >> I'm trying to find where >> page 104. >> It's the third paragraph. Second line of the third paragraph. >> One third paragraph
at the very end. Okay. Proposition may also include a vote on a motion to res >> I I do not know the answer to that question. >> Okay. Can we just not have it say special order agenda and have it say something else? Because we do not by
practice have a definition of anything known as a special order agenda. >> Can we just call it the board agenda? in in doing so, you may be expanding it considerably. So, I I will >> Okay, that needs to go back to Niola because I have no idea what that's the only reference I've ever seen of special order agenda and I don't I don't know
what it means and we don't have a by practice anything we call that. >> Uh that that's also to be honest that's also current language. I'm surprised I don't know what a special order agenda >> is not language we use. actually had the language that was struck through right below it and I was like well wait a
minute let me see what this whole paragraph reads and I don't I know it's in current language and I don't know what it means so we haven't caught it before so we can come back to that I mean you know you can figure it out later or whatever I just just mark that one as something we can
>> as as to alterations that I mean because again that's existing language so it's something I'll I'll work on but as to the There are alterations with the A through D's there. >> Um, >> that's all fine. >> Okay. >> And then we get into designated public
input. So, we flip the page, >> go down, >> and this is where we have options. So, we need to choose if we want to have a designated amount of time, which currently we say 30 minutes, but we never abide by that.
abided by it. >> So, we as a board have to determine if we want to start abiding by a policy that what we read at the beginning doesn't actually it's not in policy. So, that's what we have to talk about. >> Well, and I would love to see us get to
30 minutes on items attached to the agenda at the beginning of the meeting and then all public comment related to anything else relating to the school district goes to the end of the meeting. I I agree with if it's not related to the agenda, it should be off air and at the end of the meeting. >> Well, I don't care about off air. It can
be on air. That doesn't bother me. But I just think let's get through the agenda because there are lots of people who are here for the agenda and let's do the comment attached to the agenda and then get through the agenda and then we will do any public comment for any period of
time whatever at the end of the meeting. I go back to some meetings like the books meeting. we would have been able to do the entire business of the meeting and then let everyone who wanted to talk about books talk, >> right? And and the the difference
there's also a difference with um work sessions versus board meetings and how we do them. Now, with board meetings, we because there may be votes that are occurring during the meeting, it's important to have the public be able to express themselves on potent
potential agenda items. um prior to us going into the meeting portion. >> So for work sessions >> only items and and they can for the board meetings they can address any item that that reasonably
uh is within the operations of the district uh for board meetings. Then for work sessions, it's only on items that are on our agenda and it's always at the end because there's no threat that a vote would uh would occur that precluded
them from having their say. And in fact, they may want to hear everything that happens during the work session that's explanatory before deciding whether or not they want to even comment, may answer a lot of their questions. So we do need to maintain that ability for
people to make their comments on agenda related items prior to a board meeting. We could have general items pushed to the end. The problem is it becomes very diff who makes that call becomes very
difficult to say whether this is something reasonably related to the operations of the district or something that is on an agenda item. if they want to identify the agenda item on which they're going to speak. >> Yeah. >> However, we're putting a burden on them now to identify, you know, no, I'm here
because I want to talk about the bus thing or and what does that mean? I don't know. You know, um breaking it up like that may be more difficult. But I will point out also that most of those times when we have large number of speakers, it it is because there's a
vote on the, >> you know, on the uh topic >> on on a topic that's coming up. So, Yes and no. Because we've just had the same conversation with all of the folks that showed up for um the pheasant conversation. That absolutely was not on our board agenda for that evening. It
had been on a work session agenda. All of that public comment could have occurred at the end of the meeting as opposed to in the middle of the business portion of our meeting. I can tell you multiple school districts do what we're talking about right now. So, I understand it may change our way of work and it may be a little more cumbersome, but if folks are passionate about a
specific agenda item that we're taking business on, then go for it. But if they're passionate about something else, the district regularly takes business. I think whatever your script is, we can move that if we so choose. And I think that's what we're talking about right now. And so that's all of this section.
>> Yes, >> there's option one and then option two. and all of that is what we want to try and hash out right now. >> Miss Miss Martinez Young. >> Yes. Board chair. Um my concern would be when we have community members filling out their forms sometimes they don't
indicate what they're going to speak on. >> They have to though. That's that's going to become our practice is what we're saying. >> Okay. But this is the thing. There is no one up there to ensure. And I just had a conversation with uh Miss Cynthia Barnes and now because they are so busy maintaining the flow and so forth,
they're not able to collect the forms and be able to navigate that. So she asked that I produce a sign and a basket for them to put their forms in there, which means that forms can be placed in there without it indicating what they're going to be talking about. >> We'll definitely have to have someone sit there. When you go to the the county
commission meetings, there's someone sitting there. They fill out their form. they ensure that they have checked their agenda item and that's submitted. So, we will definitely have to make some changes >> and and can I say this, Madam Chair? Um, thank you for saying that because Miss Barnes,
Mr. Taylor, all those guys that are up there, they're up there for security >> and we need them to do security. >> No, I think a clerk needs to be coming to the meetings and they have a shifted schedule on the meeting days so that they're able to take the public comment stuff. I mean, >> but I don't I don't want our safe schools department
I totally agree. >> Needs to be someone else that's handling that. >> But the clerk also, I mean, those forms um people are handing them out or turning them in still within, you know, the first several minutes of the
meeting. So, um I would be concerned. I don't think that that I don't think she'd be able to >> Oh, it can't be. >> But I go ahead. >> I'm sorry. I just We >> The people that show up to our meetings are mostly our staff members. So it it has to be somebody that's familiar with the agenda. They know what we're talking
about tonight. So it it has to be somebody from our staff. It can't be some I don't feel that it can be somebody that's participating in the meeting. It has to be >> correct. I'm literally thinking of clerk who works in either superintendent's office or in one of the other offices
who has a shifted schedule on board meeting days and they come in late and then they're they're doing public taking public comment. I also think the 5:45 theoretically has to could change because if you're not if you're not there to talk about board agenda items, do you really need to be there by 5:45?
I'm okay with either one, but I think that's something to consider as well because sometimes board business does take a time to get through because we have discussion about discussion items. So I also think if we set any other time and we're quick then what? But >> just a thought. In the past, in the
past, we we had two board clerks. They were both here to be able to accommodate those types of things. Um, that may be something that we need to look at again as far as to um just >> No, but I think certainly Miss Prespatino, who's working now with
secondary curriculum, could be one of the people who can come in and have a shifted schedule on a day like that. For sure. >> Right. >> But if they're a salaried employee, a shifted schedule isn't even going to be required. I I mean, I I appreciate the dialogue. I think that this is where we say interim superintendent Brewer,
you're going to need to assign another member of your staff and that's up to you who that becomes and how that works. >> Agreed. >> So understanding what our our need will be and then um >> so then so to your point though, Dr. Campbell, so are we going to have essentially two forms? A form is the
first form being I'm here to speak on an agenda item and I am the agenda is available. the person can dictate what agenda item they're speaking on and those forms are collected um and brought by 5:45 and those are the ones that are at the front of the meeting and we're reserving still 30 minutes. Are we going
to stick to 30 minutes for agenda items because that's another thing we say that is very arbitrary >> and I think that's what we need to hash out right now. Personally, I think that all public comment forms still need to be there at 5:45 because no one has any concept of how long our meeting is going to last and we don't want somebody
showing up at 7:30 and for whatever reason we're about to adjourn and all of a sudden they show up and they want it. So, I think if you're planning to speak to the board, you need to be there at the appointed time. This is personal opinion. We can talk through and figure out how we want to do this. But I think whoever is out there collecting the forms is the one that's separating.
Either it's an agenda item or it's something that's not on the agenda. And so if it is an agenda item, the person who's filling out the form needs to indicate what the specific agenda item is that they're talking about. >> I I hear all that, but I also hear from our staff. I also hear from other people
community that say that 545 is unreasonable for some people that want to speak to this board. When you have people that are uh transportation, that's that's the one I hear all the time. They can't get here in time because often times they're still on the
bus. And so we if we're going to open it to uh non-aggendaized discussion then you need to change that time. We also have the form online so we could also communicate that ahead of time that people if we do the messaging that
people such as our and we've heard that from even some of our southwest schools some of those employees that want to provide comment they can complete it online and Miss Martinez Young can collect that and that way they're not held to that 5:45 time limit. That might help with that.
Well, and if they work within our system, they could also print it out and send it in the courier to Miss Martinez. It would just need to be received before 5:45 the day of the meeting. >> I I hear all that, but you got a lot of our staff. And I keep I'm going to I'm going to that that staff that are not
traditionally on a computer all day. >> Our transportation, our custodians, that group of people are not just privy to that. >> Correct. But they could email they we Miss Martinez could send in a courier the form to the a person in any office.
I mean we have an internal mail system. So >> but you know how many of our staff don't even use emails. >> We cannot be held responsible for like our way of work cannot just stop because some people don't know how to use their email. Like we have enough services. >> Be talking about being transparent and
being open to the public. >> Uhhuh. >> Okay. So let's >> So we can literally send you the form. >> Our own folk. >> We will send you the form. Miss Martinez could send it in the courier. >> They can have stacks of forms in every break room around every school, every
transportation hub, everywhere. I mean, seriously, why why not? Why not have stacks of public comment forms that they can then >> submit >> submit at any time? >> I I think that's >> turn it to their secretary and have their secretary at the at that particular place email it to Miss
Martinez. Y'all y'all are missing something. There are You have staff members that are very hesitant and reluctant to do certain things that way because of fear of retaliation, all types of >> but they're coming to a meeting to give public comment. Eric,
>> I I get that. But when once you you know who maybe maybe y'all haven't looked at it or been in a work environment where if you're turning something in about somebody now, you have that person has read several people have read it before it gets there. Am I right, Dr. B? They're not reading it. They're
literally just submitting a form to say they're there for to get public comment. >> Again, uh their their supervisor, their boss, or whoever may say, "Why are you going down there and talking to them people? What's the deal?" And then they fear retaliation. >> So, what do you want it to be, Reverend Cummings? >> I'm saying that give them that opportunity. Change that. >> So, what do you want it to be?
>> I don't care what time it is. We You do care what time it is. >> Figured out. I just don't think it needs to be 5:45 there. >> What time? Like, what what time is the time? >> What's the time? >> Y'all come up with a time. >> You come up with the time. You're the one that has the heartburn about it. Well, I I will say that on board meeting
days that basically by six o'clock we're starting the public comment, >> right? >> So that that's kind of the reason why you know 5:45 or 5:40 I believe it is is what >> I I can give to six o'clock if that if that makes you more comfortable. We say you have till 6 o'clock. I can give on
that. >> I another factor for consideration just because I've heard some of your comments here. we do need to set a a time for uh for the input period. So whether that's
30 minutes or an hour, we say that that's that's the period we're allotting. However, um most districts have gone to a three minute period. We are one of not very many who maintains a fiveminut period with the ability to go
to a three-minute period if we have more than a certain number of speakers. However, this board's practice over the last year or so has been not to limit it, but to go ahead and allow five minutes for for all, even if there were, you know, the precedent we're establishing is even if there's 25 or 30
speakers, which, you know, that's of course gives everybody their right to speak. However, um, distinguishing it between the the the reasons for that might be valid where we know we have 25 speakers turned in. However, there may not be a
need for us to do this at all. If what we have is five speakers and two are speaking on agenda items and three are speaking on non-related agenda items, we can just do them all right at the very beginning and be done with it because that's, you know, that that's fine. >> I still don't want to do that. >> I don't want to do that. >> I want to get away from everyone talking
at the beginning. I want to transition our way of work that if you were talking about agenda, you were talking at the beginning and if you were talking about things not related to the agenda, you were talking at the end. That is personally what this board member maybe we can just kind of go through some things and see if we all agree. That is one thing that I would like to see a
change to and I see chair Conrad shaking her head. >> I I agree. >> So are there is there anyone else in agreement with that? >> My only question is I I I would tend to agree with it as well. My only question is where do we put them? So do we put them after our board comments or before
our board comments? >> Before board comments. So it would be at the conclusion of we've read the >> so the the discussion agenda items then the meeting reminders happens after public comment corre public comment.
Okay. All right. I just as a way of work I'm just trying to determine so essentially then we would have public comment on any of those items that people want to speak about that are not on the agenda and we essentially in our board comments could even then reply of sorts to what they've just said. So,
it's a lot closer to the hours before that they made the statements. Okay. >> I can I can be in agreement with that, too, because if it's that serious and that important, that person is willing to sit there, >> right, >> and do this, right? >> So, I I I can agree with that as well. >> Good active board agenda item.
>> Board member Thor, how do you feel about that? I'm just looking at what we're saying uh right now in the script >> and later in the meeting up to 30 minutes will be provided for individuals to address the board on matters concerning the operation of the Marian
County School System or the school board only. Presentations to the board are limited to five minutes and are televised. There's a couple things in practice that I think we haven't reviewed yet because in our zeal to include everyone uh and I'm I probably
did it myself the times that I've been chair. You know, is there anyone that wish here that wishes to speak on this topic that has not filled out a form yet? And usually it's it's Kevin then that hands them the form after they get done speaking. But if they're upset,
sometimes they storm out and we never get the form anyway. So there's a couple of practices here that we need to come to agreement on. We have elected officials that we try to give some, you
know, extra courtesy to that come in towards the end of comments that have not filled out a form and want to talk longer than five minutes. You know, things like that have kind of been handled on the fly, especially if the audience is like, let them speak. you
know, uh, if we're going to tighten these things up, then I believe not that that needs to be conveyed because there's a lot of citizens that come in expecting to have an exchange, you know,
a dialogue. And even though it is shared very explicitly in the explanatory remarks that the school board is here to listen to your comments only and that may be redirected to a staff member to help you. Um there's a a level of still
misunderstanding or misconception and then they're mad that they came here and all you did was look at me and listen to me and say thank you. You didn't solve my problem. you know, this isn't the forum to solve anyone's problem. It's the it's the opportunity for you to air
your, you know, compliments and or grievances. So, uh, again, I just think we can have it say whatever we want to say, but how is this really going to play out in the moment in real time? That that that
makes all the difference. I'm a little concerned about making people wait till the end of a meeting if if they had the interest to come here. I would rather shorten up the amount of time anyone of us and that's all of us that have run for public office. We had to perfect our
two-minut stump speech. You know, I I think that five minutes is way too long in this forum. We can have a 30 minute conversation with them personally and and we do that. You know, we're good about reaching out to people that reach
out to us, but I would rather and I do see the point about staff is here. This is our business meeting. You know, we don't want to take up a bunch of time in the beginning, but then we could also say, well, then why don't we do recognitions at the end? I mean, if this is the business portion of the meeting,
let's get our business done first and then do recognitions. You know, there's a lot of different ways we could be doing this. Um, but there are people that are very concerned about putting things in writing and having a paper trail.
So, they wait and they come here. It took everything they had to bring themselves to do that. And and I don't want to squaltch that. Um, so I guess what I would propose is shortening the because it becomes redundant. I think
every single person that wants to speak should get a chance to speak whether it's already the topic's already been addressed or not because people have a little different twist on the same subject but I think it needs to be three minutes. I can go with three minutes. >> I agree to the three minutes as well. I
don't want to have a time cap of 30 minutes. I think if someone has come here to talk I don't care if there's 400 people here. I'm willing as an elected official to sit here and listen to every single person >> and that is at least this past year that has been what the board even when as the chair I've requested uh that we make a
change you all have said that is not what you want to do so I I wouldn't >> so I do think we need to put that into practice as well but I I think I mean not to try and take over this item but is there a way we can just agree on some some things like let's the first thing I
said was where do we stand with agendaized items item discussion or comments ahead of the meeting and non-aggendaized items comment at the end of the meeting. >> I am for that. >> Maybe. >> Okay. >> Again, this just um fresh off the ethics
training. Are we opening a can of worms by taking public comment on non-aggenda items at all during a regularly scheduled school board meeting? Um, people that have concerns about items
that are not on agendas need to be reaching out to their schoolboard members and having the conversation there. Uh, there's been meetings that have lasted six, seven hours. >> Um, school board members have stayed,
you know, after the business portion um to let everybody, you know, come up and talk. Uh, I don't know, you know, um, is that really productive and is that really how you manage change and and and
get things done or do you have very well advertised agendas and encourage people to come and you have your three minutes and we'll go as long as we need to because we said we were going to talk
about it, you know. So to me that means it's the business that's the business of of the of the day, the business of the evening. And if somebody says to us, hey, you know, I'm really upset about books. Well, we could
schedule a a work session. We could add that to an agenda item. I think what we all don't want to see happen is having our meetings be hijacked for hours over something that wasn't even on the agenda in the first place. >> I don't know that we can do that. Hold
on just a second. I Attorney Blackman, I saw you nodding during part of uh Miss Thrower's comment, so I want to give you the opportunity to share. >> I I I don't want to obviously uh Mr. Powers or Attorney Powers knows the um the law arounding a limited public forum and he certainly can advise the board on
that and I won't get into that, but certainly there is always that thought about when you have a limited public forum, when you expand it, how do you define those rules? And I think once again I I'll defer to Mr. Powers if he wants to I know he's very well verssed
in in um the forum law and I'll leave it to you if you want to add anything else. >> Um currently what our requirement is is that it needs to be either one of two things. Something that is listed on the board agenda or an item that is reasonably connected to the schoolboard
business. So that's why and and I believe that that's appropriate to give people who may not see something on the agenda. Um but it is a concern they have and this is the meeting they want to come to. Their concern they have is they don't know who to talk to but there's a
schoolboard meeting. They want to go down to their public community schoolboard meeting and they want to say hey there's this problem at my at my son's school or hey um I've noticed this being a problem. I want to, you know,
can can I comment on that and bring it to your attention? Now, there may be better means, more efficient means for them to go about that, but I think at the end of the day, it's it's probably their right to come before the board at least to make that comment. So being
able to restrict it, the only restriction that I would advise placing is that it has and this needs to be a firm restriction has to be rel related to the business of the district. So if it is and and it's not hard to make that connection, I mean, you know, we've got
a lot of different areas. Uh however, if it's wildly unconnected, we just shut it down. It's not I mean if if somebody's coming to speak about things that clearly are not within our purview that's easy enough to shut down. Um but
um otherwise how you want to divide it. I will give the board this option because I think it may be useful here if we can make some selections we need to on this. >> I currently have uh I mean it's been in place for many years. Uh there's a there's a procedure list and and that's
that's what I read from my you know when I when I mention item six and things like that in my in my preview. There's a procedure list that goes out there that people see what our rules are and I can just much like procedures that's
something that I can update. I can update it to the board's satisfaction. I can it needs probably some brushing off anyway. I can include some of the concepts you're talking about and the board can discuss it and determine whether that's something they want to adopt in addition to policy. All I would
ask is if we're going to do that then of course that's much more flexible because that document is one that I can that I can change. What I would then do is say that we need to heir on the side of being more vague within the policy except for the um you know I think you
do need to list a time whether that's 30 minutes an hour or 10 hours fact is under our own rules of procedure if we are not listing a time that allows a filibustering and allows something it
allows literally people to come up and speak on a topic for six hours and we are held hostage. >> 30 minutes at the beginning and 30 minutes at the end. >> I I could get behind. I'm looking at what you're saying right now and it says um
>> and it can always be adjusted by the vote of the board. That's important. It's critical. It's right there. >> Right. >> So, if the board sees that it needs to be greater by a little while, the board can just vote and say, "Okay." >> Well, but then it it I don't like that because >> I don't like it either. Because then
it's like you gave more time to one one person's or group's issue than you did to some other and then that looks like we're we're choosing sides. I again there's many opportunities to access us. You know, we're not hiding anywhere. So
I think it's only fair to let people know the ground rules ahead of time. 30 minutes, three minutes. So then but if I could just ask board member thorough then like historically then this year why have you felt uncomfortable because I have as well not holding to that
standard that is already set >> because we never have. >> Okay. So then are we all in agreement at least for the next year until the board changes that if we put these rules in place we are going to hold to them because that I think is the conversation that needs to happen because to your point
>> to your point we already have this rule and we are not we are not sticking to it. >> So we all have to be in agreement that when the pressure is hot and there's 40 people out there and the math doesn't math on getting to 30 minutes that we're going to say some of you aren't going to get to talk you can come next time.
Well, something we could do in that sense is, you know, again, the five minutes is great. You know, people prepare. They want to know ahead of time how much time they have. The ones that are really being >> I think we should change it to three
minutes across the board. I am on board with three minutes going forward for all comment. Period. To your point, I mean, I know for me, I answer every single email and every single phone call. So >> right to your point there are lots of
other ways at three minutes you can get a point across in three minutes. >> So >> may I add something that was a drafting note from Niola on this item on this uh topic. Um the board may desire to allocate public input time by creating a
specific formula i.e. 0 to 10 speakers each receive up to three minutes. 11 to 20 speakers receive up to two minutes. 21 or more speakers one minute each andor by pri p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p prioritizing speakers, i.e whether a parent, student, employee,
resident, etc. In the next paragraph, the second option allows for the board to include these specific allocations process. So I don't know if that if I would try to priorize prioritize based on who they are, >> who they are. kind of like I do like the idea of the formula in the beginning of
what you said just because that's fair to everyone and when >> most of the time when we've had a large group they are talking about the same issue. So then if there's 60 people and we give them each a minute
>> because that's the formula. They have got to be precise about what's important to them and we're not hearing the same thing over and over and over. >> Yes. And even when it's been the same topic, we haven't been willing to reduce the time because there had been a precedent set and there wasn't anyone
sitting up here that was certain that all would agree to change that precedent in the moment. That's why we're having this conversation now. So whatever we land on, >> agreed. We have to >> board sitting here until November, a year from now, we need to pinky swear
we're going to do it because it is hard. So, are we sticking to 30 minutes at the beginning and 30 minutes at the end no matter what? >> So, I like the 30 minutes >> before and after. >> I love the scale. >> I like the scale >> that but it needs to stay 30 minutes. I
don't care if it's 60 speakers, it's 30 minutes. >> Only 30 of them are going to get to talk. That's what that means. If there are 60 speakers here and we set 30 minutes and we go to one minute, only the first 30 people to turn in their stuff are going to talk and the other 30 can come another time
>> or the second round after the meeting or did you factor that in in your math? >> No, no, I'm saying because you're either one or the other. You're either here to talk about you are either here to talk about the agenda or not talk about the agenda. Dr. Campbell has a thought. So, what I've been doing over here is
researching how other districts have this codified in their policy because I mean, why are we trying to invent something under the sun, right? So, Lee County specifically is the one that I'm looking to because I know that they do this. They actually allow an hour. Granted, they're more than twice our
size, so I I can understand that. Um, but comments on agenda items during action special and workshop meetings. It says each speaker shall have the This is Lee County. Each speaker shall have one opportunity to address the board for specified amount of time. To ensure the
board has had time necessary to consider the issues, the public comment portion of the meeting shall be limited to one hour. Again, they are more than twice our size. >> Minutes makes sense. >> Each individual shall have three minutes to address the board. If there are more than 20 individuals desiring to speak,
the maximum amount of time will be reduced to two minutes. If there are more than 30 individuals who wish to speak, the maximum absolutely the formula no more than 60 indiv because that says shall be reduced to one minute. No more than 60 individuals will be allowed to address the board during the public comment portion of the
meeting which is exactly what we just said. Let's make it 30 minutes. If it let's start it at three minutes. That gives 10 people the opportunity. And if it you know and the math maths from there if there are more than 30 individuals who wish to speak I also
think that we need to select the option that does not allow people to give let's see where is it individuals the one that says that they can give their time to somebody else it's >> their time yield their time but I'm
against yielding time also >> yes >> so I think the formula is what we need to go with I And if you want me to copy and paste this and send this to you, Terry, I can. So you can have all the language and you just change the numbers. Um >> I think Bvard is doing it that way too. >> Yeah.
>> Um this is just so timely because this is what this is a preview of the ethics training if you haven't done the four hours yet. >> I've done chair. I also as attorney Pow was talking earlier about that non-aggenda person coming. I think there
needs to be some type of language in it that says this is not a time for them to come as vendors soliciting business. Um because you said it has to kind of relate to the school district, but that should not be a time that a person is coming trying to push the next best flag pole or waste basket. That language
needs to be somewhere in there that this is not a time for vendors and solicitators. >> It used to be in there I think years ago. We haven't had as much issue with that lately, have >> or or or it should not be a time for candidates to come and try and push their campaigns either.
>> And the the difficulty is always that if it relates to the operations of the school district, you know, uh restricting it can be difficult and it is not hard to to link something somehow to the district. We've had we've had
candidates for office that come here and they say two sentences about the schools and then start on talking about their their campaign and they've kind of made the link there. So in that case what our historically what we've done is shut up
and listen for three minutes and then say okay bye have a good day. You know >> I think when we put it in there it is it's kind of a deterrent at some point. Um, >> everybody's not gonna >> follow it, but at least we've kind of stated it that we're not looking for
that. >> Dr. Campbell, >> the I if you'll allow me to continue on with the way Lee County specifically addresses rules concerning public comment. Uh, it says only individuals submitting the public comment card is allowed to address the board with respect to the maximum amount of time
allotted. Time may not be yielded to other speakers. Inappropriate or inappropriate or irrelevant remarks shall be ruled out of order by the chairperson or parliamentarian. Any speaker continuing with such remark shall be required to relinquish the
podium. If a speaker is advocating a specific action be taken by the board which requires the expenditure of funds, the speaker shall reveal any financial interest in the board taking such action. If the speaker is an employee, owner or has a financial interest in or
is related to an individual who is an employee, owner or financial entity that provides a product or service being advocated, the speaker must reveal such interest. Rather than all members of groups or factions for or against a proposition addressing the board at
meetings in which a large number of individuals wish to be heard, the board encourages representatives of such groups or factions to address the proposition in their respective capacity. Finally, if multiple members of a group wish to address the board on
the same issue, the board may request the group to select one or more representatives to present comment to the board on behalf of all members concerning the relevant issue for a period of time determined by the chair based on the number of individuals represented to a maximum of five
minutes. So, I'm I'm just I wanted to give us all of the options that another board has done. And the other thing I wanted to mention is if we would be okay with adding this policy to a future work
session agenda where we hash all this out, we can get through the rest of this book. I I personally would recommend us moving the because we have so many opinions and I don't know that we're there yet. >> I think we're going to have to have a policy part too because there's always a few that we say, you know, we don't love
this. So I agree with Dr. Campbell, but I would like some kind of summary of where we've landed today to get sent to the board so we can at least kind of know where we are and then know where we need to go kind of deal. Um, that would be helpful. Yes.
>> Um, but I don't >> everybody agreed on 30 minutes. >> Make everybody agree on the scale. >> 30 minutes at the beginning and at the end. >> Yes. >> And the scale >> and >> and a scale based on the participants >> and the three minutes um >> and three minutes And is there agreement
on the division between beginning and end? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> So agenda items >> that's going to be the most difficult one to navigate. >> So >> and so far we have drafted public comments for discussion not related to an active board agenda
item shall be limited to a total of 30 minutes and will be held at the conclusion of the business portion of the meeting. >> Yes. So, let's just table this and come back to it in another work session or another >> that actually works out because we have
three other ones that we needed to add. >> Um, three other policies that didn't make this. So, >> yeah. >> Okay, >> perfect. >> It'll be good. >> The question I would have would be, and it sounds like I know the answer. question I have would be, do we wish to
do we wish to go ahead and and pass a compliant version now since this is our only day to do this without renoticing it for rulemaking development. pass a compliant version now um that at least
takes into account the things that bring up to speed with the mom versus liberty case and then revisit in a future work session for an updated so that we have something in place or do we want to just
not do anything with this right now which means our old one will stand as it is until we get to that update. Well, aren't by the end of the meeting today, we're going to calendar the next one? >> I mean, we have to schedule a part two. >> No, we're not going to be scheduling a
part two unless we don't get through some of these. >> She just said there are three that have to get done in a part two. >> If we're tableabling this one, then we would bring those other three at the same time. >> Okay. I I think we're going to need a part two. >> I'm guessing we >> Can we revisit at the end of the meeting? like let's
>> I think tableing it and we'll see how >> and then table this one until the end and we might be able to get it figured out. >> All right, keep that list. This is uh >> we just spend an hour on something that is >> but it does affect but it's been festering that has page 34 of >> and it would be nice to have it ironed
out before the new chair comes it is it is challenging as the chair >> well and and part of that is because we have not come to consensus of >> following our own rules >> of following our own rules. We try to be accommodating. >> Of course, we do.
>> Dr. No, I'll just make a comment. So, even like this past week we had and it will be a difficult conversation for the clerk or secretary whomever is collecting the forms because like a buddy Oswalt that is here to his his information was not related to the agenda. So, someone like that would need
to be we'd separate that form and that his comment would be sent to the end of the meeting. >> So, we would just need to really publicly share that information ahead of time. So all of those understood. >> Yamal is great at that. Make a quick video little PSA.
>> But to that point also, if we reduced down public comment in the beginning, we would get through the business meeting and probably 20 to 30 minutes max. >> As long as we're not also having 17 discussion items. So I mean that's
>> that's true. I >> think that's good. board. Since we took a long pause here, I did want to mention I am planning to break at 11:30 for us to have a brief lunch break and um restrooms and all the things. So, just wanted I meant to say that at the
beginning and we started off right with right right out of the gate. So, okay, attorney powers. >> Okay. Uh next would be uh 0172 visitation of schools by individual board members and legislators.
This is uh controlled by statute. >> The only edit is Neil's copyright. >> Yes. Just Neil's date >> of visitation by individuals. >> And this is a number five by the way. And you know what we're talking about when we're saying numbers one, two, three, four, and five, right? We gave
you that list in the beginning. Okay. So >> there's there's no there's nothing on that, right? >> No, it's just a change in the date. >> Copyright date changing. >> Yep. So going forward, the next ones we need to unless somebody has any others, what we
can go to the ones we need to pull. >> 1,00 administration is the next section and >> Oh, so that 10,000 administration. So we're done with >> we're done with the bylaws. >> All right. >> See, we did accomplish something.
>> And all of the number TWs throughout these sections have been completed by district staff. So those we're the answers are in there. If there's a specific policy you want us to look at, do you want us to just read them off and then you tell us to stop?
>> Sure. >> Okay. Um sorry, are we looking at um 1120? >> That is correct. >> That's the first one up. 1120 employment of administrators. >> Typo in the green. >> Okay, let me get it.
>> Typo. Yeah, it's missing an I and individuals. >> Individual. >> Yep. >> I saw it, but I just didn't. >> Thank you. >> So, my question on this was I'm assuming this is a state law change that has
happened that now, but I I was trying to figure out what an example of this would be. House Bill 77 7071. Uh revisions include language requiring the district to provide information about the availability of state level and district level supports and
instructors instruction available to assist employees who do not achieve a passing score on subtests of the general knowledge exam. The revision to this and others 1120, 3120, and 4120, which are the parallel policies, are the result of
HB 1255, which amended Florida statute um requiring the removal of a date related responsibilities for a um agency for healthcare administration and the addition of the following statement. Individuals who apply for employment are
governed by the law and rules in effect at the time of application for employees provided the opportunity of employment is maintained. So >> so >> long answer for yes. They had >> yes. So essentially anybody who's hired right now is going to be governed by the
law that we're putting in place right now. Anybody that's hired before or after potentially might have to >> under different law. >> So have fun HR remembering all that. Moving on >> and and we'll mark that that is also
that's going to be the same for policies 3120 4120 so we can skip those when we get to them. >> The next one is 1121.01 background screening and employment history checks. It's an basic update and
in this case there it is. >> We're good. >> And again has been reviewed by staff. All of these have. So, uh, they they've made, uh, any edits that they see fit. >> Just an update in the wall for this one. >> Yes. >> Next is, uh, 012
1122 non-discrimination equal employment opportunity. This is a level two. Staff has made the, uh, choices. This is as parallel policies 3122 and 4122. >> So, chair, um, I've made a note on
nearly everyone that I've caught. We no longer have a title known as director of equity and compliance. >> Oh, right. Uh >> we made those corrections. >> Yeah, we we actually we made all those corrections. We caught that a few days ago. Went back and we've we've everywhere where that's that occurs, we've now in uh
>> employee relations. >> Y employ time as well just to bring up there's references to uh Neola procedures and I believe those Miss Brown has taken those out per my request to take those out. Yes. Yes. Uh, so you'll see references maybe in the book that aren't reflected on the screen
that's being edited. >> And also, is there a title known as director of secondary curriculum instruction and digital learning? >> No. >> Okay. It's what I thought. >> Good. Good. >> So, that's also on page three of this policy.
Even though we don't currently have that position in our staffing plan, I think it should reference director of secondary curriculum. >> Perfect. So then taking out instruction and >> Yeah. And we're going to need to keep these things in mind either when we're putting them in
>> and the compliance. Sorry. >> Either when either when we're putting them in policy, the title in policy because we can't put an individual's name, of course. um either when we're we're designating someone in policy or when we're creating new titles, we got to because otherwise our we're
constantly bouncing in and out of compliance with our own policy. >> Okay. I'm not sure what it's supposed to be. >> Director of secondary curriculum. So take out instruction and digital learning >> because we'll always have a director of secondary most likely.
>> And so I'll do a shift I'll go through every one of them and find that. >> Perfect. There are a lot. >> Yeah, the equity. >> Oh, that's a lot. >> I actually want to just just search for the word equity through all of it. >> Okay. Unless you have something else on
this one. Um, moving on to uh 1124. Uh, that's number six. That's a number six. It means this was one which specifically we'd rejected. We have already uh a policy in place. Uh, that's
one we talked about earlier. 1129.01 tutoring. It's a level two. Staff has made the decisions um and put it in place. Any questions regarding that? Moving on. 1139 educator misconduct
number F. That's a number five. Revisions to policies 1139 and 3139. 1210 standards of ethical conduct. It is a number two which also means the staff has reviewed
and made selections. 1213 student supervision and welfare. 1242 professional learning 1362 anti-harassment 1410 administrative salary >> turn sorry on uh which one were we just on
it's it's just there's another title that we need to Okay. Which which >> maybe it's already been fixed. Oh, yeah. It was already fixed. Sorry. Student discipline coordinator. That's And we took out the executive director of student pathways. Got it. Never mind. Because you're just going to do a search
for all the titles that need to be corrected. Okay. >> So 1410 was administrative salary. Uh 1425 nursing mothers >> ascended struck. Yeah. Is that because it got put somewhere else?
>> There's a one unified policy at the end and you'll see three policies have been rescended. >> Okay. Thank you. >> 1430.07 military leave. >> I'm glad we're putting that into I like the way that's really it was really great.
>> I don't know who worked on that but >> and there are parallel policies 1430.07 7 34 3430.07 and 4430.07. >> And the next one is 1500. It says it's a new policy, but this has been rejected
repeatedly by our by the board and the district and it just never got properly rejected. So this is the proper rejection of that. It >> was rejected all the way. >> All the way. This is >> thought they were still >> Yeah, we did a pilot and then we there
was going to be a regrouping and pilot was very unsuccessful from what I remember. So, the recommendation was for us to not have it at all. >> It was for I thought it was um unsuccessful in certain departments. >> Yeah, there was I think there's more work to do on this to be honest. Um
trying to mirror uh the the private sector and how we're losing employees. Um, >> I think the piece that we're missing in Marian County is the accountability piece. At least from the departments I've heard, it is doable. It can be done well, but you there has to be a a high
sense of accountability, whoever's in charge of that department. Um, we need something more concrete in how we're evaluating um, working remotely and that was missing. That's how I feel. um I would agree with >> from this because I think there's
definite value um in that. Yes, >> I'll just add and and I I do understand where you're coming from. This to the extent that we want to have any remote work, this policy doesn't need to be passed to do that. >> Correct. >> But the concern would be if you pass it,
it kind of sets things in stones or requires. So to the extent that certain positions or situations may benefit from that, that conversation can can continue to happen >> procedurally. So that's under procedures. Exactly, Dr. James. >> And that I think that was a piece
because there was some value there. Um but it requires a a high level of accountability and a high level of integrity. >> Yes. >> Of the people that are going to be participating in that um that we allow to to do that. >> Well, and I also think it's very
specific. There's specific roles that this is beneficial to. um not whole departments so to speak but a person here a person here and so that that would be valuable. Yes, Dr. Ber I do want to let you know that we do have six
employees that are currently working remotely. They do three days offsite, two days in the office and it is going well for those particular employees with the accountability of their work and their outcomes. >> Fantastic. Thank you Dr. Brewer. which is exactly what remote work has been for
more than 20 years. And that's why I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You know, we were generous. We we gave it a shot kind of globally and gave a lot of latitude. Um but it was also timing of things too of what was going on in that era. Um you
know, COVID and everything else. Um but thank you for sharing. I I was unaware that we had anyone um still working remotely. So my input would be that that needs to come from operations recommendations of specific positions
that lend themselves to that uh for all the reasons we just stated. >> Okay. >> All right. We're moving on to the 2000's program. Uh the first one is 2120 school improvement.
>> You want to just stop me if you have one? >> Yes. >> Okay. Voluntary >> 2125 school advisory councils for school improvement and and accountability 2128 is another policy that's deleted and it was deleted all along. So
uh 2210 curriculum development >> I'm sorry what 2125 we passed that one and I missed it. the SAC one >> the school advisory council's okay >> so yes so I was just curious as to when so this will take effect with the
election of members of sachs that uh they'll have to have ample advanced notice and that teachers could would have to be elected by teachers and other employees have to be elected by other employees and students have to be
elected by students that's currently not how Sachs operates so my question was when this will take effect that will be impactful for the next school year and we'll just need to ensure that principles are very well aware of what
that looks like because that is not at all how sacks are elected. Now >> I think a a solid procedure from the superintendent about sachs in general is going to be of value because even as it exists what occurs at one school is not necessarily what's occurring at another
school. Some schools can't even find people to participate. So, I think having some outlined basic procedures that reflect the policy that we're adopting will have value. >> Agree. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Um, moving back to 2210 curriculum development 2215 program of instruction. I'd like to just make one comment because I don't think it's reflected in the documents that were presented to the board that we did intend to have both those boxes
checked. I think Mr. Brown has already adopted that in the electronic version. >> And um which policy number? >> 2215. >> 2215. >> That is correct. Option one is struck through >> at the very bottom of the policy.
There's two boxes that were blank at the time >> and they have now been completed right here. >> And then for the make sure I'm on the right policy here on at the top page I already Miss Brown is aware of this as well but just so
it's clear for the board at the top of page six there is a paragraph that should be in green. It is actually a new paragraph. Um I guess during the the crossover, it might have been missed, but it's clear now obviously what we have it fixed on the computer screen, but I want
to make sure the board was aware that's a new paragraph because there was two options to choose from and staff chose option two. >> Instructional staff members subject to board >> on your copy. It's not in green. We've fixed it here. >> Okay. The next one is 2260
non-discrimination and access to equal educational opportunities. >> And that one has a title in it of senior executive director of student pathways that also doesn't exist any longer. >> What is that new title? I I don't I mean
I'm not sure who it's on page >> is get more vague so that we don't find ourselves in this position all I just feel like every year we're like >> employee relations on this >> every time we do a reorg then we it's
like can we not just make it more vague >> well and and some of them are to remove political you know challenges Not this particular one, but other ones that we've had to not draw attention to.
>> And for board policy, we just have to have the person to whom this has to be directed. Unfortunately, if that person's title is changed, >> yes, >> we're stuck. So, >> well, which I appreciate the change in emails, which is something this board has worked on, and not it being a
person's email, but rather being an email that goes to just an account that's forwarded. So >> would this be defined as a technical change going forward where if there was a change in position or would the board see that as substantive
>> given the new policy then? Yeah. >> So technical. >> So that's I'm hearing it now. Technical change. So that's something of course we can work with so we wouldn't have to bring these sort of things back. >> Sure. I'm just noting it for Miss Brown so she knows that that's also a title that because as you're clicking on the titles that would need to be changed.
That's also one that needs to be changed. Do we have the answer to what title that'll be? >> Yes. If it's for students, the director of student discipline handles um >> this is equal opportunity for employees.
>> Then that would be Dana Gary's position. That would be the director of employee relations. >> And that's already in here. >> She's listed their director of exceptional student education. And then this one would be for student grievances. It was listed as senior executive director of student pathways.
>> So I guess the operative question is who controls the student grievances at maran.k12. >> That's what I said to begin with. Student grievances goes under director of student discipline. >> Okay, I'll make that change.
Okay. The next one is 2271 articulation and access to Florida college system institutions. 2280 physical education, 2340 field and other school sponsored trips.
>> And I want to make a note on this one as well that there's a box that needs to be checked as well. Miss Brown's already aware, but just so the board is aware, this is for the procedures for field trips, ensuring that it's a safe location. As you can see on the screen, it's been updated. >> Okay. >> Also, back to 2271. Don't we normally
say superintendent or her design or or their design? >> Superintendent. The way we settled on that was superintendent means or designate >> if it's a capital S. >> If it's a capital S, right? >> Understood. Thank you. >> The next one is 2410 school health
services. 2411 guidance and counseling. 2415 is deleted. 2417 comprehensive health education. 24. >> Sorry. >> Well, what? >> 2417. >> Comprehensive Health Education.
>> Yes. >> Did you have a question on that one? Okay. 2421, Career and Technical Education. 2423, Career and Technical Education, Workbased Opportunities.
2430 district sponsored clubs and activities. 2431 intercolastic athletics and intramural competitions. >> When are we getting to the vans, Jeremy? Is that coming up?
>> She said, "When are we getting to the vans?" We knew that was >> I'll let you know. >> Okay, don't let me forget. >> 2431.01 participation by transfer students. 2431.03 concussions and head injuries.
2431.06 is a new policy and it is being deleted. 2455 dropout prevention and academic intervention program. >> I'm sorry. I don't see it strike. >> So NIL policy we're not having
>> correct. My understanding my understanding is that um based on review of staff is that there is an FHSAA process in place and that we're just going to track and follow that. They didn't want to get into having our own
separate policy to address these items and that's what was uh told to me. Since the legislature and DOE has not addressed this issue, we're just sticking with what the FHSAA is doing. Okay.
>> Yeah. To be more specific, FHSAA uh in their bylaws, article 9, um they have revised the bylaws uh the and the Florida legislature and Florida Department of Education has yet to substantively address NILs for K
through2 students. Niola is substantively reluctant is Niola is reluctant to include policy language that's inconsistent with FHSAA bylaws. So the provisions that they put in this policy basically just track portions of
FHA SAA's bylaws. Um school boards are encouraged to communicate with legal counsel regarding NIL related questions. So for right now the fact is that we're tracking already what is in the bylaws. We're not really, we don't really want
to without specific statutory guidance make a policy on it of our own. Instead, we're just going to continue to track the FHSAA bylaws, which is what we've been doing. >> Okay. >> And I went ahead and deleted this policy.
>> Um, the next one is 2455, Dropout Prevention and Academic Intervention Programs. 2460 Exceptional Student Education. 2520 Selection and Adoption of Instructional Materials.
2521 Instructional Materials Program. 2522. Challenges to adoption or use of instructional library or reading list materials. 2623 Student Assessment.
2800 educational services for students in department of juvenile justice education programs. >> Can you just pause for a second? >> Sure. >> I have a question on um 2522 adoption and use of instructional
library reading materials. On the second page, a resident of the county who is not the parent or guardian of a student with access to school district materials may not object to more than one material per month in accordance with the state board rules. How are we tracking that? I just
>> they have to give their address, right, for an objection. >> Yeah, they have to submit a form. I mean, okay, perhaps >> I just didn't know and I thought that could I mean just thinking back to events of the past, >> you know, how that that could be cumbersome for our staff and so I was
just wondering how we were going to manage that just by a form by form and they >> form I mean I'm sure it could be >> one could get their friends >> to do it for them but >> true >> you know but there certainly there was a
limit at least to it and this was as I know the board's aware was designed for those individuals who were submitting like hundreds of >> Oh, and they were going through the whole state like they were going district by district and submitting the same thing. >> They don't have district. So, a lot of unnecessary work. Yeah. So, I I did
understand that portion of it. I just wanted to make sure I was like, okay, what process do we have in place to >> help our there's a form to um complete. There's a there's administrative procedures as well for this. I haven't reviewed them prior to this meeting, but I have done at least talked with them in the past. So there is a process, but
obviously I think it'll be it's one of those you'll know it when you see it kind of situations as well. >> Okay. Thank you very much, Attorney Blackman. >> Are there any other questions for the 2000 series? >> No. >> Okay. Moving on. 3000 instructional
staff is the next section. >> Policy 3120 employment of instructional staff. >> Wait, Terry. >> Okay. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Okay. I see. Okay. >> Are you good? >> Okay. Um the next
>> I know. Well, >> yes. >> You know, and I'm old school, so I'm not >> I'm not mad at the pedal to the metal. >> Sorry. 3121.01 background screening and employment history checks. >> Yeah. >> 3122 non-discrimination and equal
employment opportunity. and we will update the names. Uh 3124 is another deleted policy. It already exists as 6.33 on the district's website. Uh 3124
volume 3 is also same policy deleted again. 3129.01 01 tutoring 3130 appointment assignment transfer and promotion of instructional staff.
>> I just think this is such a tricky thing in general >> number >> um 31 >> 3130 just you know what is considered a promotion even though it's still an instructional based position and then you know pulling people I I do believe
that um even maybe procedure to have a to have a date certain that we are no longer taking instruction on people out of classrooms. Um I believe that in my heart. I think that um when a dean position opens up after spring break,
I'm sorry, but I think they should go the rest of the year without a dean and district support should push in because the only person taking that dean job 99% of the time Miss Mar could run us a report is someone coming out of a classroom and removing people from classrooms in the any time is a
challenge. But when we get to me after Christmas, I just don't think we should be doing it. But that's just um a Dr. James philosophy. >> Well, and I agree. But the the other side of that coin is our our behaviors or disruptions from our students tend to
increase towards the end of the year. So, it's a double-edged sword. It's it's just a challenge um that we have to face. >> Yep. and district support can push in and facilitate support, but it's it's we
what is the bigger detriment is what I always look at. So, if you're looking at a high school world history teacher, not world history, that's not a good example. A high school US government teacher who is facing 150 kids um a semester, right? theoretically
theoret if they if they vacate their position um due to getting a dean job at that school and they're no longer able to teach 300 students US government and they can't find a US government teacher >> we we really it's a it's a problem right
um and so and US government isn't even a state assess but I'm using the wrong example but you know what my point is right so um biology right and so if we take a teacher out of 50 in front of 150 students that is certified in biology and gets great biology scores, but a
dean position opens up and they're in the pool and they want to move up. And I appreciate all of that, but what is what is worse? Those 150 students not getting biology and theoretically our school grade being hit because we don't have a certified biology teacher delivering instruction
or we go without a dean and we we piece that together. Um, and I would love to see us have a more set procedure on it. Not necessarily in policy, but at least a procedure to really have some true plan for it and not just willy-nilly.
I just have I just have a question which is in the weeds a little bit, but Dr. Brewer, is it possible so that we don't we don't penalize our staff for missing an opportunity? Can they apply for a position like that and then that it's held to begin at the end, you know, when
they finish their school year? >> Yes, ma'am. We've done that and it really is case by case and it depends on the position because there's so many variables, but it really would depend on that particular perceived promotion. Um, exactly like
the example Dr. James shared a US history teacher leaving a position is different than even a world history teacher where both of them are very valuable. There's different there's just different considerations. But I I do think it depends on each position and
each um the other reality is our district support is not as robust as it used to be. We we have um narrowed our central office staff quite a bit. So we don't have the personnel that is able to push in. So we'd really have to take every single position,
you know. >> Yes. >> Into account. >> Wrote down a little statement that just says sightbased decision in coordination with district operations, >> right? >> And not one to be taken lightly, you know, as as you just, you know, very eloquently illustrated. Um, so
>> Okay. The next one is 3139, educator misconduct. 3210 standards of ethical conduct. >> Um I made a note on the drafting note on this one.
Uh I'm just trying to see why >> we did also have I think we had a 1210 that was the same. So let's uh >> Okay, just uh I'm sorry, Attorney Powers, I didn't hear what you just said. I think we also had a parallel uh
policy 1210. I'm just double checking that now. >> Well, they inserted stolen valor in both of those policies. >> Right. My my question on the drafting note on this one does say that Niola recommends that school boards continue to require that educational support
employees, instructional personnel, administrative personnel, school officers receive annual training. uh policy template continues to include the requirement that training is provided annually. I my question is just ensuring that we are providing ethical
conduct training to our employees. >> It's on Canvas. >> Perfect. >> Mandatory. >> Yep. >> Perfect. That was my question. >> And then we have our four hours. >> Right. >> Okay. >> And do we have that in But do we need to have that in policy? And that is it what this policy says like uh it doesn't
actually say in this policy that we >> I don't believe it says that. I believe it's recommendation. >> Right. So that's my question. I I that I'm like I know I had a question about it. So >> No, it does say the >> the very bottom >> the very bottom it does say that. I apologize. Um that
>> instructional staff members >> that was their recommendation and they're encouraging us to stick with that even though they're saying it's not required. They're suggesting we hold >> Got it. Sorry, I I wrote over the line that is below the green. So that like Wait a minute. Verify that this is the case. Oh, wait. Yeah, I just stopped at
the green. Got it. Thank you. >> Okay. >> 3213 student supervision and welfare 3242 professional learning. 3362 anti-harassment.
>> That one's 13 pages. Hang on. >> Okay. Sorry. And we already know those titles. >> Yep. And that's also a parallel policy. We have 1362. >> Okay. >> 3410 is deleted. >> We've never had that policy, just to be
clear. Yes. As well. >> 3422 is also deleted. >> That's another one we never had either. Yeah. >> 3425 um is also deleted. 3430.03
sick leave. 3430.07 military leave. 3500 is deleted. 3700 teachers bill of rights.
And that ends the 3000s unless you have any comments. Moving on to 4,000 support staff. As we get to 4,000, you will notice that a large uh percentage of these are going to be ones which there have been parallel policies. You've seen them
before. So, um I'll point those out. I'll just indicate that there's a parallel policy. >> 4120 employment of support staff. >> There is a parallel policy. >> 4121.01 background screening and employment history checks.
>> Same. 4122 non-discrimination and equal employment opportunity. >> Again, parallel policy. >> 4124 is drugfree workplace again deleted. 4129.01. >> I'm I'm sorry. Hang on one second. I
just I wanted to make sure it there's not Okay, back on 4122. >> Okay. >> It does not have an X checked. And so I just want to make sure we're not opting in to
>> Yeah. If it's not marked, they will delete it. >> So then >> it should have been um stricken through that would parallel the previous policy as well. >> Okay. >> So it's just we're selecting >> the the more um concise um choice.
>> Okay. So all of the top of page two in green should have been stricken through because we're not adding any of that language. >> That's a recommendation of staff. Yes. >> Okay. Okay. Just making sure because it's
Anyway, >> I'm going to go ahead and mark it for clarity for Niola. Are we keeping that first paragraph in green on number two? >> That's recommendation of staff. Yes. >> Okay. Oops. >> Yeah. It doesn't want to
>> There we go. >> Okay. Uh 4129.01 tutoring >> 4210. >> Pause just one more second. I I want to just make sure that we do agree with this.
Which one are you on, Dr. Kim? >> I'm back on 4122. >> Let me give you some context also if it's helpful. Um, House Bill 7 amended Florida Statute 760.10, which is unlawful employment practices,
and uh, Florida Statute 1000.05, 5 the Educational Equity Act by making it unlawful discrimination to suggest to subject students, employees or any individual to any activity that promotes, advances, inculcates or compels them to believe certain concepts
are discriminatory. The revisions to these policies incorporate the language from House Bill 7. Um and then there are the parallel policies of 1122, 3122 and 4122. >> I think that's my question. So, I understand that staff is recommending
that we not encapsulate the information from that house bill, but does this board want to? That's my question. I understand staff says not to, but if it's the law, do we want it enshrined in
our own policy or not? >> I can say just from staff's recommendation, um, believe either way, substantively it will be the same. Um the concern sometimes is when you list a lot of things, it makes it sometimes
more difficult to follow. But additionally, you you run the risk of listing things at the risk of excluding something else, especially if there's a new item added, you know, next year. Uh ensuring that the more uh concise answer tends to provide more less likely to
kind of like box you in and that's the concern. However, I don't believe as of either way this the board decides to go either way will be appropriate and both will be sub substantively the same. However, I think it depends on how much the board wants to sort of make it
explicitly there versus follow up in the statute. Well, and I understand that staff would agree that statute references are are going to say we're abiding by the statute, but I dare say any employee who's feeling that they are not receiving equal employment or that
they have been discriminated against may or may not know even how to find FS 760.10 to see if they're in one of these protective class. I don't know. I just I feel like that the law was written for a
reason and if we choose as a board that we want to include the language that was put into the law and I can go either way on this board but this is one of those where staff is recommending something and I think we need to have additional discussion about it whether or not >> we can't go wrong by including statute
in >> Agreed. >> Now I would say that um uh if so we probably need to reconsider also the parallel policies. >> Understood. I caught it on this one. I didn't >> make sure that we put them in there also. So, um, we have,
let's see, what's the policy? This 412. >> 4122. It's just, do we want to talk about all the things that we don't want employees? >> Yeah. I mean that's kind of the point of the I mean it's a relatively short policy and kind of the point of the policy is to capture uh house bill
>> the changes that were made >> seven those changes and those changes are not ones which are just necessarily intuitive those changes uh speak to very specific things which are now law right >> so it would be intuitive I might say for someone to say you can't discriminate
against someone because of you know some thing that we long have recognized as a protected class. It might not be intuitive. So, I understand the fact that it might be best to spell that out here. So, that's certainly within the board's purview to make sure that staff are informed by having it within the
policy. >> Doesn't sound like there's much of a downside, >> right? I agree. >> I think we should include it. >> Let's do it. >> Shall we also then include it in the two parallel policies? >> Yes. >> I don't think so. >> It stood out to me on this one. I don't know why it didn't on a previous one, but yes, please. If everybody agrees,
>> that's good. It just felt odd to me that it wasn't checked. And so then I my question was are we opting in? And then the answer was staff was recommending no. So I agree with recommending it or with including it. >> 4122. Okay.
>> Thank you. And you got the parallel policy. >> Those are >> do that when we're done. >> Okay. Just note that there are >> What are the other ones? Um, yeah, hang on. It's 11:22 and 31:22.
>> Okay. >> I don't know why I didn't catch it before. >> Got it on the last one. >> I think we were uh we had passed standards of eth ethical conduct >> 4213. and 4213 super student supervision and welfare and there are parallel
policies in 1213 3213 and 4242 professional learning support staff also parallel policies 4362 anti-harassment
parallel policies 1362 and 3362. 4425 Neola recommended it be rescended. 4430.07 military leave 4500 new policy and remote work. This
had the >> that's deleted >> parallel. That's that's deleted. >> That's the 4,000s. And there are 4,000s. >> We're moving on to the 5,000 students. >> Sure. >> 51
>> We'll plan to break after we finish the students. Yeah. >> Okay. 5111.01 homeless students. 5112 entrance requirements. >> That's the one I want to fix. Just not yet.
>> Okay. 5136 wireless communication devices 52000 attendance. >> I have this 5223
>> absences for religious instruction 533.01 01 self-administered medication and ephrine use. >> Um I had a question. I just said does
this cross reference stay? So at it also says see also policy 5780 and we do we typically do that where it has that cross reference indicated. Okay. >> On a policy just not on APs. If we see an AP that should be removed.
>> Okay. The next one is 5330.02. Use >> Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you, Terry. >> No, no, >> finish. >> Uh, use of medications, administration of medical marijuana to qualified students during school hours. >> This question, do we have like I just
wondered, do we have students um that use this? And could you give me an example? It's kind of complicated think you know, thinking at it from this variable polic. >> Okay. Thank goodness it is because what a nightmare that would be to manage. So I just didn't know what that looks like for us as a district.
>> So I I can give some history about why this is here. First of all, um there is a requirement in statute that we have a policy on this. However, Nola will not create is my understanding a policy of a recommended policy. So, other counties,
other districts have created a policy on this and I've been requested by staff to bring this forward because they keep being asked, "What's your policy? What's your policy?" And they keep following up with me saying, "Hey, we need this." I said, "Working on it." Um, but the
So, this is required to have we we looked to other uh counties who have also been using this. This is probably I would say the most I won't say restrictive but it it really ensures we're not bringing anything on campus. Additionally, my understanding of the
history and I cannot vouch for this personally as I was not here that this policy was passed in the past but when there was >> specifically removed because of a number of concerns. >> Okay. So maybe there's mystery. I was told from staff but my I was told that Neola when the transition to Neola we
didn't bring it over. I don't know why, but I was told because of statute, we have to have a policy on this. And so that's what we have. This is I looked it over and it's probably the best that I could see us doing. >> I mean, coming from from the school perspective, I I thought that was about
as tight as you could make it. Um, you know, do we have a lot of students with this need? Do you know? >> I haven't. I I first of all I I'm not I'm not clear when when you say that there was a uh there's statute says we
must have a policy on administration of medical marijuana to students. >> Yes. Um I can we can break for lunch and I can come back with the more details on that. I don't want to >> that works. >> We've got Yeah. Florida statute 16.062. Okay.
>> Allows for school boards to do it but I don't know that it requires school boards to do it. That's the question that I have >> to respect staff though. Staff are wondering. So then a parent says, "My kid has medical marijuana gummies for his ADHD."
>> Then what do we do? Because that is real. I mean, yeah. >> Checks them out, administers them, >> checks them back into school, and they go I I mean, the only thing I've seen is with seizures, seizures and all. I know
there's some >> So I think what the staff though is asking of us is to have a policy to support the procedure so that it's very clear what our expectation is >> and it's under eight here. Each district school board shall adopt a policy and procedure for allowing a student who is
a qualified patient as defined in 381.986 to use marijuana obtained pursuant to that section. Shall ensure access by the qualified parent. Identify how the marijuana will be received, accounted for, and stored. established processes to prevent access by other students and school personnel. So,
>> and I can say that >> I I felt very uncomfortable when this was first brought to me for the reason I did research on this and attempt to say, do we really have to do this? And staff told me we did and I looked into I'm like, I think we really do. But like I said, this I believe is the most prudent way forward. Um
>> I agree with you >> because even if you're allowed to take uh prescription marijuana, you're not allowed to be inebriated at school. And that was clarified as well. So there's a just as you can't be inebriated on other prescriptions medication, you can't be inebriated at school. So it would have to be a dosage level that's
insignificant to your ability to function in a school because you could still be punished for that. >> Also also like of our staff for our staff because their caregiver has to administer it. >> Right. >> Exactly. Not our staff. Exactly. >> It's not >> it's off campus. The student gets
checked out >> which to me is also it's a commitment. um there has to be a high level of commitment from the parent or the family. Um you know, they're committed to this as a solution. And and if I may add, I know Attorney Powers and I have
had this conversation before, marijuana is still illegal under federal law. And that's what makes me very uncomfortable with this because even though state law says you have this ability for it to be not prescribed but a doctor's note for it essentially um it's still illegal
under federal law and until it's descheduled or if it's descheduled it puts us in a precarious situation where I'm on the one hand being told we need a policy on the other hand I'm being told it's illegal right >> and how do we best manage that? So, this was staff's way of hopefully making it
as um in the middle as possible or >> specific. >> Thank you. And I do like that it specifically has a um indication in there of if there's a threat to federal funding under this because one of the things that's kept us from moving forward on a lot of policies and
directives is the idea that um despite the fact that some states do it and flaunt it and get away with it. The very fact is is that medical marijuana is an issue which uh whether through staff or students or anything can be uh it if the
federal government suddenly decided that they wanted to crack down on that it could cause serious loss and risk to the district. So um along with this we've got here's here's a process by which we allow it for students. There's going to be a conversation at some point in the
future about what about with staff, >> right? And um so those are things that you can look forward to over the course of the next year. >> Okay. >> All right. The next >> Okay. So, no changes. >> Yeah, I'm good. Thank you.
>> The next policy is 5350, student suicide prevention, awareness, and screening. >> My only question is at the very end of this policy, we listed all the statutes again, and I'm not sure why >> they'll be removed by Niola. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Um Terry, I just I just wanted to
say um I'm just thankful for this is there recent rec recently, you know, there were three suicides um in Semino County within one week and so I know that I know that our staff is is sensitive and active and so um I'm just
grateful that um our team does the work and we're doing our best our can best we can to make everyone aware of resources and things that are available. >> Okay, the next one is 5410.01
promotion, acceleration, placement, and retention. 5460, graduate, graduation requirements. >> Can we go back 5410 real quick? Sorry, >> there's no going back. Okay,
>> I got I think I got ahead for some reason instead of behind. I got to scrolling, but I did have a question on this. So, >> which which policy number? >> 5410 acceleration promotion >> and I don't necessarily know that it's
in the edits that are in here as much as a philosophical conversation about promotion. Um as we have as we have gone through different administrators, different superintendent, we have maintained
um a eb and flow of philosophy about kindergarten retention specifically >> writing into law. Seriously, that's the proposal I'm sending to FSBA that it would be a law change actually. So I
um well specifically for what Dr. Campbell >> kindergarten retention that there in order to go to first grade that you would have to essentially pass the benchmarks of the STAR um progress monitoring three in order to be in first grade. So regardless of whether or not
you were uh coming from a private kindergarten or from a home school or if you were enrolling in a public first grade. That's what I wrote. We'll see if it >> so I and I don't disagree with you. I think understand >> I think kindergarten is going to get real heavy.
>> I'm telling you, but if they want to step sorry >> so I don't disagree with any of that. I just think and and I don't know exactly where it is in here but do we have in policy what we do with kindergarten retention or is it specifically on the procedure side of the house because
we don't do a lot of kindergarten retentions as a district and correct me if I'm wrong. We used to >> correct. That's where I'm going back to the eb and flow. >> And when I say a lot, um I don't want that to be taken out of context, but you had you had, you know, maybe at a school
you had two or three children out of your kindergarten units that just >> would benefit from another year >> round two >> of literacy exposure. So, >> so, so the way I understand it is right now a third grade retention, we can make
the decision aside from the parent, right? We as the school district determine promotion based on state statute and other things that are indic indicators to student success. They've either met the mark or they haven't. Parents can be as happy or not happy
about it, but we ultimately make a decision. That is not the case for kindergarten. >> So we can recommend kindergarten retention and if the and the parent can say no and the child continues. And so that is what I'm that is specifically
what I am talking about is can we enshrine in policy an internal decision within Marian County or do we need to wait on state law to be able to move forward with something like that? Because I do believe there are instances in which we are
finding ourselves where the data would demonstrate the necessity for kindergarten retention yet the parent is not on board with that and they they ask for promotion which then just hurts us and the child in the long run because then the child is not ready for first
grade. They're failing their benchmarks and it's a trickle up effect. We're I don't that's up to you if you want to put it in policy, but we are we are actively working on exactly what Dr. Campbell stated identifying much earlier
and principles have had really deep conversations about more retentions are needed in kindergarten and and we know the reason is if we can set that foundation at an earlier age, we are going to be better off by the time they get to third grade. >> But that's up to you.
>> Okay. >> Well, I guess we can wait and see. I just I really think it needs to be a focus. >> I agree. It it is a focus on on our side for sure. >> I would say see what the legislature comes up with and then if it doesn't if
we then have the latitude because we think it needs to be stricter based on our needs in our county, >> then we need to have a make a note and have a timely conversation after session. >> I always I've always thought that we could be a little more restrictive.
um that we have the the the leeway to be more restrictive than what the rules than what the state is saying. So if we need to go to kindergarten, I I think I remember when I was a kid, it was first grade. And I think if we need to be more restrictive, then we need to enshrine it
because we need to do what's best for our kids, >> right? >> And if it's kindergarten, if it's first grade, whatever it is, we don't need to wait till they get to third grade. And then >> we know third grade is too late. Way too late. >> That's way too late. and and hopefully some of our other legislative priorities in alignment with this will will be
picked up and passed as well, you know, with with man with compulsory age, compulsory attendance. >> That's all going to make a difference. >> I don't think we have to wait on Dr. Campbell's to get through to do something >> we do or we don't. >> Right. >> That's well that's kind of what I'm saying. >> Sure. Yeah.
>> I can read to you what I we've been massaging this with FSBA. This is a good time for me to just share with you all in case we want to pick up this language as we go to Tallahassee next week. I I want you to know first of all that they have real concern about actually making
compulsory H5, but hear me out on the recommendations I'm making to land on the platform. So in the statute that we all want to address one3.21 21 about school attendance. All children who have attained the age of six on or before
September one and they're still we're still leaving in September one of any school year who are older than wait of any school year or who are older than six years of age but who have not attained the age of 16 that this will be school attendance. Then it the next
section says children who have attained the age of five honorable for September 1 are eligible for admission to public kindergartens during the school year. All, this is what I'm proposing. All children under the age of six years on or before September 1, but are enrolled in public kindergarten are required to
attend school regularly during the entire school term. So that will help us with the kindergarten thing. And then as we get down to the next section, uh it does talk about that any child who has attained the age of six years honorable before September one of the school year has been enrolled in public school or
has attained the age of six um and has success satisfactorily completed the requirements for kindergarten in a private school uh which the district school board accepts transfer credit all of that um that they would then transfer in a manner similar whatever. Then I have enrollment. This is my recommendation. Enrollment in public
first grade requires achievement of kindergarten benchmarks set forth by the Florida Department of Education as indicated through enrollment testing procedures. And then the statute currently still reads, "However, nothing in this section shall authorize the state or any school district to oversee
or exercise control over the curricular curricula or academic programs of private schools or homeschool programs. We're not going to say what kind of curriculum they have to have, but we're going to say if you're going to enroll in our first grades, you're going to have to actually meet these benchmarks because the state has set the benchmark
and now we have to have rigor in kindergarten. And so we have the DOE rigorous kindergarten uh benchmark form that you can give all to parents and everything. But if you want us to continue on this progression, that's so if we're okay with that, we're still saying six years old because
people are really concerned about us enshrining five-year-olds because there are a lot of families that do believe that their personal children don't need to like let's hold them. They're small like boys aren't as mature or whatever all the reasons personal families and we want to not impact personal choice. >> Time.
>> Absolutely. So I think that this would encompass all of the things. So once you are enrolled in kindergarten, regardless of your age, then you're required to attend as everybody else. And then also, if we're promoting you to first grade, then you have to regardless if you've
done it in a private kindergarten or whatever, you have to have the benchmarks of kindergarten to go to promotion. >> So potentially, if they did a private kindergarten somewhere and then they entered public school in first grade, we're going to give them the assessment. >> They would have to have the assessment.
>> Wow. something some kind of entrance exam and I don't know that that's going to work but I mean they could just come in as kindergarters >> that would be a game changer. >> Well I mean that's that's what I'm proposing >> both >> as FSBA potentially picks this up and they haven't commented yet. That was
yesterday was my deadline. So, uh, that's what I'm proposing and I think that I mean it we're going to hit a lot of hurdles, but I mean >> but it makes sense >> monumental change. I think that's what's found on this
>> we have but we have the ability to do something now with this. >> Well, that's what I'm saying. Do we So, my question is I know this wasn't even really there wasn't a lot of staff edits here, but do we have can Marian County Public Schools say essentially what Dr. Campbell is suggesting into state law,
can we just make that a policy in Marian County and say you don't get to go to first grade until we have >> proof that you've mastered kindergarten or you have a documented disability which then gives you a waiver for >> Yeah, I I think we would definitely need a waiver because we don't want to get in
the situation we have with eighth graders for instance. Remember with eighth grade they have to have 12 units before they go to high school. Well, we have transfer students or even our own students that are 15, 16, 17 years old that have never completed those 12
middle school units. So, it and now that's a state law. We can't do anything about that. But we're in we then end up um putting a barrier on that student ever receiving a standard diploma. So, I think we would need some flexibility in
um whether it be a some kind of discretion that we finally promote that student to first grade. >> So, is this one of the ones that we can bring back? >> I would like to see staff work on this and bring it back. Yes. Because I do I mean I think obviously Dr. C uh Dr. Brewer is hearing our thoughts on this
kind of for the first time as a board. So, I would like to see staff work on this and bring it back to us. And it would obviously have to be for next school year anyways. um it couldn't be for this school year. So, um but I I think there's value there. >> Oh, >> 100%. We've been really strong on this,
which is why we've focused so much on attendance and and if you're going to show up in kindergarten, you need to show up like everyone else is supposed to and and be held accountable. And what value does how do you even get a high school diploma when when you haven't
passed any of your middle school units? At that point, I think that the kid there needs to be an alternate graduation pathway if you can earn an industry certification of some sort. That would be an alternative type of diploma. I mean, otherwise, you've just done edgenuity or admentum over and over
and over again and you haven't learned anything much. So, yeah, I'm 100% on board with this conversation. You know, if we're going to be accountable for him at the end, we need to have be able to be accountable for him in the beginning. So the question is as of right now this
the the updates to the policy this is an existing policy and the updates to this policy >> um are made specifically to um incorporate some of the amended administrative code rules pertaining to deficiencies in reading and mathematics. So
>> I have no I have no problem with what's in this policy as it's brought forward. So certainly we can keep this and approve this. There's no issue with that. I just think I'd like if we're gonna have a part two, I would like to revisit this. >> Agree. >> And what what we can actually change
allowable by law because I don't know that we can require what we're asking. I mean, we maybe I agree, >> but I don't know if we want to have it in policy or if it's more of procedure. I that's >> we need more information, >> right? >> But you hear what our thoughts are for sure. to the to the point even I've
found and you all probably have seen it already but the actual uh DOE Florida benchmarks for excellence student thinking which is obviously the best standards parent guide for kindergarten there's an English language arts one and a mathematics one and it tells you all the things that you're supposed to know in kindergarten and what parents need to
be doing and all of that which is great but what happens for the ones that don't or what happens for the students that just show we we were in a school this week where there have been two separate families that have shown up within the last month of a first grader, third
grader, and seventh grader. The only of the and this is two separate families, first grader, third grader, seventh grader, all enrolled within the last month. The only of those children that has even been in school is the seventh grader. The other children have never entered school and none of them have
been in school since 2020 when COVID hit. And two separate families, same school, exact same grade levels, different scenario. I'm like, there has to be something that we can do or say, >> right? And I think that's happening at every school. >> It absolutely is, but I mean, that just happened to be a unique one that I heard
this week. >> Yes. >> Everywhere. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> The next one is 5460 graduation requirements 5463 credits. >> Uh 5460. So, I just want to make sure
that the um indication of certificate of completion is there. Uh for students with disabilities, certificates of completion, did they not just go away? >> Okay. So, it does say a student with this is on page three of it. It's under the section students with disabilities.
>> Uh a student with a disability who receives a certificate of completion. So, I don't like we are not issuing those. So, how is that referenced here? student with disability would receive a waiver and they end up receiving a standard diploma.
>> Understood. I just any reference to certific certificate of completion I believe should be stricken from policy. >> The title says certificate of completion. So how would you like that title? >> We literally don't have those anymore. >> Wait, I'm sorry. What? I don't see a
title that says >> the title for the subsection, Alison, Dr. Campbell. >> Yeah, that first part. Okay. may elect to remain as full-time student. >> The section I see is students with disabilities is the heading. >> Are we on policy 5460 graduation
requirements? >> Yes, >> because I was striking it earlier than that. >> Certificate of completion. It's >> the whole section should be stricken. It doesn't even exist. >> Page number is 349. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. But also on page 346, it
needs to be stricken as well. That's where I saw it first. But I mean that needs to be I I don't know why Niola would have left this in because this whole concept of certificate of completion's been stricken. >> It's just that the title hasn't been
struck. But if you on 349, if you continue to read to the end, it says it's it's it's struck stricken. >> I'm seeing stricken >> shall be awarded a certificate of completion in a form prescribed by the state board of education. that is stricken.
>> It's on 346 where it says a student with a disability. >> What are you saying? 346. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> The section >> the disability who receives a certific >> correct >> has an IEP that prescribes special it needs to be. >> So we can't strike
>> the existence of a certificate of completion if we're also saying a student can have one. >> Well, they can't. >> I know. That's what that was my point. That's why I have it here. So I don't know why they didn't strike it there. Missed >> it. So there there has to be a way you can
search that language and pull those out. Terry, >> so what do you want um with a disability has declared >> there's no certificate of completion for even the kids with >> if a student with a disability >> and this is related to being able to continue to receive instruction and services basically till their 22nd
birthday, >> right? um student with a disability who so what it needs to say is a student with a disability and has an IEP who has an IEP that prescribes special education transition planning that's at work study
or related services through 21 years of age may continue to receive the specified instruction and services. So a student with a disability who has an IEP so receives a certificate of completion needs to be
stricken struck removeade. >> They just missed that. You need to tell Niola they they missed that one. >> It's also in the first paragraph there. >> I have it orange on the screen. >> Yes, I see it.
>> A student if a student with a disability has declared an intent to earn a certificate of completion. So perhaps that does have to stay >> the IEP. So my question is um is this taking into account has there been
has there been anything discussed with the legislature which indicates that uh in in like there a grandfathering period essentially for people who already have a >> so that's what the first paragraph I think we have to leave it there because we're going to have lots of IEPs that say certificate of completion in them.
So first paragraph does say that if a student with a disability has declared an intent to earn a certificate of completion >> and who has not earned a standard high school diploma, >> right? So then all of that, but then a student with a the third paragraph or whatever, a student with a disability
who receives a certificate of completion, well, we're not going to be able to award those any longer. So they're that's the one they missed. >> So a student with a disability >> who has an IEP. So leave out that receives a certificate of completion
>> because that's not happening. >> Who has an IEP that prescribes special education transition planning transitions through 21 may continue to receive. Yeah, we just take out that one little area. Yep, that's exactly what you said. >> Okay. And then at the bottom, >> we want to head it make a different
heading other than certificates of completion. >> Yes. >> Right there. >> Um did we just open that up though? Because that's talking about certificates of completion. It back to what we were just looking at. Did we just open that up to every student with
an IEP can now receive services up to 22? >> That's correct. >> They have to get a waiver, >> right? >> They have to they have to get a waiver. There's plenty of kids now that don't qualify for the waiver because the transition services and work study it's
it's not appropriate due to their level of disability. But I would ask Niola to review that because there's definitely discrepancies in what's here compared to what the new law is. >> Okay. Oh, I understand what you're saying. So perhaps at the end of that
paragraph now, a student with a disability who has an IEP uh may receive a waiver, too, because the next paragraph is about the waiver. >> Yeah. But do we need to include that in
the paragraph before? Because they used to get a certificate of completion and that would be the piece that would give them that waiver to go the certificate would be the waiver I think. Is that right? >> No. >> No. >> The waiver is for the assessment portion of it.
>> Okay. So the um certificate of completion is typically for our standard um our nonESC students when they don't receive when they have not passed the ELA and math assessments. >> Right. But what is it called now for
students with disabilities who have IEPs? What did they get now? >> A high school diploma. >> A standard diploma. >> Yeah. With a w >> with a and they do a testing waiver. And that waiver is not just a a given that they have to show that they are making progress with the standards and the only
reason that they are unsuccessful with the state assessments is because of their disability. >> So then this needs to read a student with a disability who receives a standard diploma with a waiver h and has an IEP then they can be until they're 22.
>> They have a deferred status. So that's when they I I think this does need to go back to Niola because >> there's a they end up moving because not all of them choose to do so but they go into a deferral a deferred status. >> So this need Yeah. This policy just
>> we'll just remove it and move it to the next. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Because it's an IEP decision too, >> right? >> Yeah. They haven't fixed that the right way. >> Time. Our current policy will continue to stand for now and we'll remove this and move it on to the next uh what's the policy number?
>> I agree. But I do want to I agree that that section needs to be but the Florida Seal of Fine Arts program needs to be put into policy. So I mean this for graduation requirements that like the next section that we were adding that needs to be put in policy because we
want that. So I don't know how we can >> and we and we granted that last year. >> Yeah. Right. So 5460 has all of this stuff that we need to fix about certificates of completion, but the section about the Florida Seal of Fine Arts needs to be in policy when we do our updates.
>> So I don't know how we can do that. >> And that's N5460. >> It is. >> Okay. >> So we could make remove all of the other edits >> and just leave that edit for this goound and then come back with the other edits. >> The work. >> Yes. I I just want to make sure because
we've already started awarding the Florida Seal of Fine Arts and so we need to make sure that's in policy. >> Double check and go back and make sure that the little small edits we made as we were on the fly right now. >> Remove those >> to get back to the original >> and then just do the the one that Dr.
Campbell speaking of. >> Yeah, just thank you. And on page uh 349 about the title certificate of completion also needs to be removed because we don't even have that anymore.
>> Yeah, I don't know how they missed it. questions 5,000 section. I don't think I have any other questions in the 5000 section. I don't know if anybody else does, but I don't. >> So, for now, the certificate of
completion section can either be entirely deleted or just remove their edits. >> I I think at this point we need to ask Niola for a recommendation. It's going to have to be when we bring them back.
That'll probably be in January. Um but what we'll need to do is get their best input and advice as to how they want it changed. In the meantime, I believe that we can have a conversation about how we would like to see it changed, see
whether the two mesh, and then uh I I wouldn't I wouldn't delay it though. I mean, I I would I would not change anything in our current policy with the exception of if as Dr. Campbell's indicated, there's something crucial which must be added. this right here.
>> Um because the certificate of of of completion stuff at worst it doesn't apply and we can fix it by January. So, >> right because it just doesn't apply, >> right? >> Okay. So, I've corrected it. I've removed those other edits and we have left in the most important part.
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> And I don't have additional questions through the 5,000 section. I don't know if anybody else does. >> Okay. I'll just uh maybe that's a efficient way to do it. Does anyone else otherwise what I will do and I'll do this now is I'll just go down. It is important for me to put on the record
that we've called each of these. So I'll just start calling them out and then somebody stop me if we're if you have if you have an alteration. So we left off with 5460 graduation requirements. 5463 credits from other schools.
5465 general education development GED tests. 5500 Student Conduct 5511 Dress and Grooming. 5514
Use of Personal Transportation Devices. 5517.01 Bullying and Harassment. >> Just I have a Just a maybe a possible edit at the end of the first page that's highlighted in green. It says this
paragraph does not require a school to staff or monitor. I think it should be the paragraph does not require a school or staff to monitor just to switch the two and the or >> in the last line. >> I wouldn't be able to tell what page that is.
>> The last >> I don't have page number. >> Yeah. So in the electronic we got to go through it. >> It's in D section D. The last line in green, >> this paragraph does not require >> does not require a school to staff or monitor any >> school or staff.
>> Oh, no. What what it's saying and I understand the wordings is yet to staff being a verb like to uh to to have people there to put somebody there. >> It's not requiring us uh it's not requiring a school >> to staff
>> man. Right. Thank I didn't get that. >> Okay, >> that is odd wordy. Okay. >> Okay. Um I think I left up on then 557.01 bullying and harassment 5530 drug
prevention. 5600 student discipline 5610.01 emergency removal of students. 5611 due process rights. 5630 corporal punishment and use of
reasonable force and restraint. >> 5724 preparation for voter registration. >> Deleted. >> Deleted. Uh >> that it just says delete do not want. I just want to make sure that this is staff is requesting us not do this.
>> I kind of disagree with that. We're not voter registration on campuses anymore. >> Oh, no. It still would be done, but the question about requiring it. So, my understanding in talking with staff is it's certainly something that is uh encouraged. It's not by any means
eliminating it. It would just not be requiring it by policy because every school may have different issues and so on. Um, and that would be the reason why >> I would say all schools need to incentivize students to participate in their democratic >> I agree and I think we should keep this
policy. Sorry, I said I know I said I didn't have anything in 5,000. >> I'm so sorry. We don't have this policy currently. This would be a new policy. >> Okay. >> So that's I just want to make sure that was a distinction. We're not getting rid of a current policy. We would not be adopting a recommended policy. >> Okay. So let's read. statement indicates
the schoolboard believes that preparing students to assume the responsibilities which our democratic society places on each of its students or citizens is >> just one second technical difficulty. >> Okay. >> The school board believes that preparing students to assume the responsibilities which our democratic process places on
each of its citizens is an important function of the schools. Supplying our high school students with all pertinent information regarding voter registration is one crucial means of meeting this goal. Accordingly, the superintendent using such resources as the high school administration, faculty and student
body, local officials, and others can provide shall develop a nonpartisan voter education registration program for all the high schools in the district. Additionally, each high school in the district, the administration of the high that is kind of messed up. Additionally,
each high school in the district and then I don't know what that's supposed to say. The administration of the high schools shall offer the opportunity for enrolled students to all students who reach the age of majority the opportunity to register as voters. >> I can see the administration of each
high school in the district. That last line >> looks like something got cut and pasted incorrectly. >> Do you want do I delete additionally each high school? I can see where staff would have an issue >> because um it it could it could it could lead to
them having problems leaning one way or the other based on partisan politics. And if I was staff, I wouldn't want to I wouldn't want to be that person that you delegated to do this and be accused or insinuated that I pushed
them one way or the other. I think that's why you have staff. So it says the superintendent using such resources as >> high school administration. >> Yes. But it includes local officials and
others. So it could be the procedure of the superintendent that it's not actually the administration. It's actually the supervisor of elections office that does it and that's who she uses to utilize >> which is what we're doing already. >> That's absolutely right. Right. I would say put that in there that you if you're going to do it, put in there that it's
going to um be the supervisor relation. Um just to keep people neutral. Um I think that's that's that's the that would be the the issue for me if I was that staff member or that administrator. I wouldn't want to get accused of pushing um someone in one direction or
the other. >> I mean, civics teachers are also educated to not to teach partisanship and so forth. So, I mean, I just believe we need to include this policy because I think that this is an important part of of what we need to do.
>> I I I agree with you there. I think it needs to be pushed that kids need to know how to get in the process and to be registered to vote. We just don't want to put our staff in it. >> How's the statute read? Because if statute says it has to be >> Okay, let me suggest a couple quick
changes. uh down the last line, the administrator of the high schools uh shall offer the opportunity for enrolled students. Okay, first of all, might want to change administration of each high school, but or or keep it, but it I would say the administration of each
high school, not the high schools of each high school. So off the opportunity >> uh and then opportunity is is doubled there. Shall offer the opportunity for enrolled students >> to all students who reach the age of
majority. >> I don't know why those are both >> I don't either. >> That doesn't make sense. >> This whole sentence was messed up. It's all yeah it's like >> she'll offer the opportunity for enrolled students um >> who have reached the age >> who have reached the age of majority
>> opportunity of course there's also though the pre-register >> pre-register so I would say opportunity for all enrolled and eligible students >> for all enrolled Yeah, because they pre-registered 15 and
16 year olds when they go do their license and such and delete that whole that Yeah. And just delete the age majority thing for enrolled students. Enrolled and eligible students.
>> Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Okay. Starting off here. Go to get rid of back your cursor up. Back to students. Keep going. Okay. De delete that word students.
Enrolled and eligible students. Good. Who have Okay. Get the rid of the who have reached the age of majority. Okay. Uh to register as voters. the administration. Now the question is do you want it to remain administration uh of each high school? Um do you want
it to be >> Yeah. >> Okay. So the administration of each high school shall offer its opportunity for enrolled and eligible students to register as voters. >> The opportunity to register as voters. >> Well again I said shall offer the opportunity at the beginning. Do you want at the end instead?
>> Nope. >> Okay. So reading over the schoolboard believes preparing students to assume the responsibilities which our democratic society places on each of its citizens is an important function of the schools. Supplying our high school students with all pertinent information regarding voter registration is one crucial means
of meeting this goal. Accordingly, the superintendent using such resources as the high school administration, faculty and student body, local officials, and others can provide. You want to say shall provide? Well, I mean, I think that it's shall
develop. I think you actually leave out the can provide part. >> I would say will develop, >> shall, >> will provide, develop. Uh, no. The very next I understand. >> Yeah. So, it's can provide, shall develop. So, I mean, I think it's probably just shall develop. >> Yep.
>> Okay. Shall develop a nonpartisan voter education registration program for all high schools in the district. everything. >> Now, practically speaking, I'm just trying to visualize what this might look like on a high school campus. Does would this be something similar to when, you
know, the military comes during the school lunches where there'd be like a a voter registration table, you know, providing, you know, just information on the process. Is that what we're talking about here? Because if that's what we're talking about here, I'm 100%
behind it. it it should be being taught and I'm sure it is in American history and government and things like that and your yes civic responsibility but it's one thing to say it but it's another thing to have the table right in front of you with the information so you can >> yeah we currently have the supervisor of
elections come usually um there's a couple of staff members that come to the schools and they meet with all the students in a government or economics because you know that class is paired semester by semester and those students go and usually into a media center and they do a presentation and they talk
about local government, national government, state and so it's a really good presentation and then they do pre-registrations um and there's a lot of emphasis put on it and you may recall he's even um supervisor of election comes to the board meetings and usually recognizes
the school that has the highest registered participants >> right >> so I just want us to have this enshrined in our policy so that say the supervisor elections changes is they have a different community action plan, whatever they do because I mean I think I don't know that that was in place
before Wesley Wilcox was supervisor. Maybe it was. >> It was, >> but Okay, terrific. Well, I just >> It's been in place since I was at school. >> Wonderful. Well, I just want to make sure that we have it in our policy as well that we're making it a priority. >> So, I know it's a new policy, but thank
you. and and he really focuses on or prioritizes all levels local and he emphasizes how important that is which is already has already started that conversation in civics when they're in seventh grade but he just continues that education so it's a really good session
>> I wasn't sure how it was really being rolled out um lately and I do remember him coming in giving the award >> so yes so since all that's happening I I agree it should be in our policy Okay, moving forward. Uh 5780, student parent rights.
5780.01, parents bill of rights. 5782, parent guardian notification and permission, school sponsored events and activities. >> And these are sixes. So were those deletes?
>> I go those were all the fives. >> Okay. All right. All right. So, we're through with the 5000s. Uh, it's 12:12. Do you want to take that break now? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Designate how much time you're going to give us? >> About 30 minutes. It's uh let's recess. It's about 1212 and we'll come back at
12:45. >> How many more seconds we have? >> We have three, >> six, seven, eight, nine, four. >> I think they're easier. >> I'll go to this, >> but only 200 pages left. So, we're I would say we're twothirds of the way done. >> But these were also not as cumbersome. I
didn't feel >> right. They get a little less complicated. >> Okay. 2:45. >> So, we're recessing. >> They're going to get make us less. >> We are in recess. and welcome back from recess. It is 12:49.
Turn it over to attorney powers as we move on to board policies on finance. >> Okay, we're going to resume with the 6,000s and that is finance policies and I will start off reading through each one. I'll give a few seconds in between
so that if you if that's one that you have addressed anything in and wish to bring up from your uh from your having reviewed it then you can stop me and we can address it. Then um again I'll remind the board that for each of these I do have some justification for what the uh the legal justifications for what
those um uh policy adjustments were. If you'd like to hear it I can I can do that but I won't read them out individually unless requested. So uh PO6107 authorization to accept and distribute electronic records to use electronic
signature and make electronic fund transfers PO6144 investments of funds >> staff did not accept Neil's edits on this one. >> I'm sorry I go back to 67. I'm sorry I was scrolling back. Uh I just wanted to
make sure it does say the superintendent shall put in place measures to protect the integrity, security and accessibility of electronic signatures. So does that mean that by adopting this policy that we will then
uh move into some program without calling a proprietary name like docuign or something like that and so by accepting this policy we will then have to have something like that in place. >> Yes. And that will of course raise certain things that we have to deal
with. For example, as we've mentioned before that again, the only signatures which really count within our within within our district are the signatures of the superintendent or her design or the board chair or board members. >> Okay, perfect.
>> So, we'll have to address those issues in in procedure. But yes, for these purposes, um, it does say the superintendent shall put in place measures to protect the integrity, security, and accessibility of electronic signatures. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> 6144, investments of funds, and this is
one that staff um reviewed and chose not to accept >> despite it being green and and red. The staff would like to keep it the way our current policy reads and none of the updates were statutoily required. This
was just Neola's recommendations. 6146 post issuance compliance for taxexempt and tax advantaged obligations. This was a six. So is this 6146? No, it's a number six. Was this a
rejection? >> Six is a new policy. >> Okay. So, it's brand new. >> It's new. >> Okay. So, it is a new policy. Um then 6152.01
waiver of school fees also a new policy. 6233 district budget. like to add one comment to this. There is a check box that um Miss Brown probably has updated already, but just so it's clear, that check box should have been checked and it's shouldn't and
it's not in your books. >> It has been since checked. >> And yeah, >> which one was that? I'm sorry. >> Emergency planning. >> So that's on >> struggle. 6133. Okay.
>> 6233. >> Okay. I'm sorry. Give me the >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. And the question was >> emergency financial plan for D. And so this is something we are doing. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So you see right there uh it it did not
the the box didn't get checked on the uh on the form that you got in your books and we have checked it since. Okay. >> Next is 6234. Use of discretionary lottery funds.
>> Do we want to keep the policy? And I mean I understand it goes. >> I apologize for laughing. >> Well, I mean it it does have a a note here that we don't have to keep the policy if we don't want because it's kind of irrelevant. >> Yeah. Yeah, drafting note was added regarding discretionary lottery funds as
well as two legal references. But again, yes, it we >> do. We want to keep it in. That's the only question. >> That's the in case we get the quarter. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, I think anytime we leave it in though, then people think we actually get it. That's the thing that >> confusing. >> It's confusing.
>> One day we might. >> Not as long as Florida Bright Futures exists. >> It's true. >> I mean, seriously, there's absolutely no other funding source to fund that. So >> next is PO 6320 purchasing and contracting for commodities and
contractual services. Uh this does warrant a moment of discussion. We had originally intended to reduce the amount for uh the vendor's application and for someone to be a vendor. Currently at school sites uh it's $2,500 per calendar
year. Um but we the under some of the audit advice it was that we should reduce that amount. Um we have chosen not to edit this policy at this time. Mr. Rios, myself uh purchasing department finance met on this issue. Uh
that is going to be an aspirational goal that we we move toward that direction but the implementation is going to take some time. um as well as figuring out a lot of the process for how we gradually reduce it from $2,500 down to a lower
amount and eventually down to zero so that all vendors will be included. However, thanks to certain things that the legislature has done, including requirements for human trafficking affidavit and things like that, it becomes voluminous to deal with. So, um,
given that this was not a this was not something that was identified as a as a as a risk on our audit, were far above other districts. So, we're going to continue to do um our due diligence on this one and work down to um an eventual
edit of this policy. >> Do you have an anticipated timeline on that? >> Uh, no, not at this time. Um, but we're we're working on it. Uh it's it's something that we don't want to break the system because frankly uh what we're
dealing with is easy when it comes to things that are district side. When it comes to school-based side um you've got individual school secretaries and bookkeepers that may not be familiar with the vendors app process and may en
encounter difficulties in getting their documentation and things like that. So, we're it's going to be a a training issue >> challenge. Yeah. >> So, for that one, it'll be removed because there will be no edit. >> Just so you know, that won't go through.
>> There's no change. >> No, I was just looking at Miss Thrower because this is something we worked on. She brought to my attention and so Mr. Powers um has been working on this for a couple months. Uh 63 sorry 6325
procurement federal grants and funds >> 6330 >> um >> sorry I have some comments about this one >> 6330 >> yes >> go for it I have some comments as well >> this is not intended to be removed what
we um are attempting to do is reject the um one small change that Neola made. I believe an old version came through and they wanted to change the uh amount from 7.5 million back down to the old amount which would be against what the board
just did in the last update and also would not go against statute but make it more restrictive than statute. So the only thing that they were changing was that threshold amount and we wanted to reject that. The way it looks is we're rejecting the entire policy. That is not
the case. the current policy would remain and status quo would remain. >> I have made that update so it says it here in the notes for Niola. >> Okay. So policy 6330 currently exists. That's the Okay. Because I I just wanted
to ensure we weren't deleting the the option to have design build because that is the policy that gives us the option to do that. And just as a point of note, board, I'm still very interested in us considering a design build model as we consider new wings onto schools that
like may have never had one. Perhaps if we build the Maplewood wing or a Ward Highlands wing, I I think we need to at least consider a design build model. Um it it uh gives you the opportunity to have a one set price and then you never
have to see change orders and you never have to see any of that ever again. Uh we've never pursued it to my knowledge in Marian County Public Schools, but um I know uh Reverend Cummings and I both heard a presentation a few years ago about it. And so I still
am very interested in us considering that moving forward and facilities construction. So wanted to make sure we weren't when I saw it was I was like, "Wait a minute, that's the policy that says design build all in it." So okay, good deal. Uh, next is 6530 reemployment
assistance. 6540 consultant agreements. 6605 Crowdfunding. 6661 Instructional Materials Allocation
6830 External Financial Audits 6840 Auditor Selection Committee. This will replace the current version. The recommendation was to reject Niola's
new version and to stick with the status quo. That was a recommendation out of finance. >> All right. >> So, I have a question about 6,000. I didn't see it. So, I know I can't remember which policy it is that we
kind of broke our own policy whenever we pulled the money out to balance the budget. So, are we leaving the policy as is and just knowing that the board broke the policy or are we amending the policy about Dr. Brewer probably has more information
on that. I I thought the policy and correct me states that um we just have to ask permission from the board if it's if it's less than 50 up to 50%. >> Okay. And then how do we ensure that we're funding that back?
>> We I just met with um Mr. Welsh last week and we have a proposal for the repayment of that. >> Okay. Um, and so we'll be able to share that soon, but that is our top priority going into our budget conversation starting in January.
>> Okay, perfect. Just wanted to make sure that we were >> it doesn't get forgotten. >> Thank you. >> Correct. >> Tony P, can we backtrack just a little bit on um 6540 consultant agreements?
That was something that was concerning to me originally, but I as I look at the language here, the charge of $400 per eight hour day. So, we're saying >> an amount requested in excess of $400
per eight hour day or $50 per hour shall require approval of the school board. Uh, traveling expenses shall be paid in accordance with travel and predium. No payment shall be made to the consultant until all services and supportive documentations have been completed. So
um the form of set agreement must be approved by the schoolboard attorney and must provide for payment of the consultant at a maximum of $400 per eight hour day. So for professional development or whatever consultant case might be that would be that that
provides a cap. >> Okay. >> And then if it were going to exceed the cap it requires um >> requires board approval. >> Okay. >> I remember that. >> Okay. Right. because that was a ch that was challenging because we ended up there were some consultants we were
paying way more than what I felt personally was appropriate and so is this new or this is um sorry let me put my glasses back on >> it's not new >> it's just updated it had a bunch of typos in it
>> okay >> so schoolboard chair and superintendent can enter into the agreements but if the agreement is contemplates that the cost is more than $400 for a workday then or $50 an hour then it's going to require board approval.
>> Perfect. Happy with that. Thank you very much. >> 7,000. >> Okay. 7,000s. So this is property 7100 facilities planning 7101
building permits and the code enforcement office. 7110 >> student accommodation. This has been rescended. >> 7230 >> gifts, donations, and bequests has been rescended.
7230 version two gifts to the school district. >> Also rescended. >> Okay, this one stays. uh gifts to the school district. >> Uh so my only question and I saw it in
another uh after this as well. Is there a reason why we don't want to include that the superintendent is authorized to accept gifts or donations to the district on behalf of the board? Because I I see that we're accepting the principal or director is authorized to
accept individual gifts, but we don't necessarily give the superintendent the authority. Is there was there a reason for that or are we just leaving it up? >> I'm just I'm just curious. I >> was elected. >> Yes, because elected makes all the
difference. >> It might be just left over from when that was an elected position. >> Yeah. I just didn't know. So, I mean, there's lots of options here that you can choose from. And so, I just didn't know why we weren't giving the superintendent the authority to accept gifts.
>> Do you all know? >> Trying I'm looking at my notes to try to It's been a couple months since I've gone over this. >> Um, I think it might have been Give me give me one minute to re-review
this. Okay. I have I was focusing on other parts of this policy, but >> yeah, I just didn't know why we didn't select that. It's the same thing holds true in the very next policy as well. I believe the issue was the question about the usurping
potentially the board's ability to accept gifts. Uh and the fact that you you may there's there are some questions I think about well how much do you want the board to be the one involved in it or do you want the superintendent to be able to do that? I think there when re reviewing this with
staff, there's kind of a question of kind of who to be, you know, responsible for that, but I don't see an issue with that. But I think that is something the board should weigh in on because there's been a lot of discussion about how much it's being recognized in the board meetings and what thresholds and and so on. So, I think those are important
questions. Um, I don't think it's inherently unless the the board attorney has an issue with it to have the superintendent accept those gifts. There are of course some exclusions as you'll see later on down on the list as well. >> So I mean I I understand at least a
portion of that. I I disagree I guess with the part that says that the list of gifts would be compiled semianually because I think that that's definitely not frequent enough and we're obviously accepting and acknowledging that the gifts with $1,000 or more value are
going to be acknowledged by the board. we are not having to approve those gifts as we used to have to do but we are just acknowledging them. Uh so all of that is well and good. I just I as I consider the potential thought that we might
enter into um additional sponsorship opportunities and ways that we might try to fund raise for specific programs andor buildings or things like that. I I just would hate to wait on a board
meeting for us to be willing to accept whatever it might be. Now there I don't know there's I just think that leaving that out of >> this is true. In addition though um over certain threshold levels there are a number of factors which occur when you
see for example that it says under the struck language um they accept terms and conditions of any such gift or donation uh and has the discretion to accept or deny gift or donation on the basis of those terms and
conditions that can be problematic. Uh for example, if someone donates, as we recently had, if someone donates a or or we wish to purchase some large piece of uh equipment, um that large piece of
equipment um may have insurance requirements that need to go through risk management. There may be terms or conditions that go along with it that we that need to be, you know, cleared. Um and the I don't think it's
usually a we have to hurry up and accept it kind of thing. Um it depends on how you set the threshold, but I think it can always be accepted provisionally. Um going and of course anything that's goes through the Maring County Public
Education Foundation is is separate and independent of this. So, um I think it's a little different when you're running into donation of materials, supplies, things like that for which there may be other considerations. >> Well, and that one is stricken. I mean,
there there's articles of equipment donated to the schools. That one is not included. I I I don't know how I feel about that either. I mean, I I'm thinking So, obviously, we're thinking possibly of antiquated materials or equipment that someone might want to
donate. Okay. Okay, I can understand why you would reject that. But if we are saying that someone wants to come in and donate all of our volleyball nets or something like that, like are we because we don't have articles of equipment donated to the schools by individuals.
What can be accepted and contribute to the operation school program? Donors shall be noticed. What? Because we're not accepting that like if you donated Okay, volleyball nets are not going to be more than $1,000 probably for all the whatever. Let's come up with something
else that's similar. Um like all of the somebody wants to come in and donate brand new >> scoreboards. >> Scoreboards. Okay, perfect. If we are not allowing a couple of these other options inclusive of the superintendent as well
as articles of equipment, those check boxes that we're currently saying not to accept that way, then we're limiting our opportunities to accept donations. That's what I'm trying to prevent. And I just think the more authority the
superintendent potentially has as well as that one that's stricken that says articles of equipment donated to the schools may be accepted. >> I could offer a suggestion is the first check box is potentially the one we
could select and then the board and indicate at what threshold you feel comfortable the superintendent being able to accept. Um, we have it currently set with $999 is how I read this at least, but you may want that to be a different threshold. Uh, that could be
one option that could ameliate the issue that's being discussed >> and and that's fine. Right now, it the only check that we're giving is a principal or director. We haven't even given a superintendent because because principal never means superintendent. Superintendent sometimes means principal, but principal never means
superintendent. Right now we're not giving any authority to the superintendent to accept anything. >> Right. And the principles would be for under a thousand. >> Right. So I I just I don't want to limit the option. So I could tend to agree with attorney Blackman that we need to
any proposed gift to the board valued in excess of I don't know what the X needs to be yet must be approved by the board. I don't know how I feel about that either. I mean that's what we got rid of. So we I don't want us to go backwards. So, there used to be a time
that we couldn't the superintendent couldn't take in any gift until the board approved it. We only have two meetings a month and sometimes we only have one meeting a month. Like, come on. That's not a way of work. So, I would probably lend more towards accepting the
superintendent is authorized to accept gifts, which is the third one down. And then potentially also again I'm going back to that articles of equipment donated >> to schools by individuals >> for my input. I also believe that the amount is relatively irrelevant unless
there are going to be you know tax implications or something like that which should not ever be an issue for us. Um but the the part which would concern me is any gifts which deal with transfer of
title or which have terms or conditions for acceptance. an unconditional gift whether it's cash or something that doesn't have a title and there's no terms given that's that's that should be freely acceptable and I don't really
have any compunction as to what the amount is by the superintendent if however someone wants to donate an airplane to our aviation department which is going to send our insurers into
an absolute tizzy uh then we need to prior to taking title on that or prior to doing anything about it, we need to be able to review that and have the board discuss and approve it. Um, and certainly it needs to go through risk management and probably needs to go
through the schoolboard attorney as well. So those were would be the factors which are very rare but that would need to be controlled for. >> But all of those steps would still be the superintendent could still have the authority to do that. If the superintendent was going to be accepting
a gift, my hope is and perhaps it's a procedure that needs to be included as a part of this that whatever gift that would be accepted would be going through the superintendent's own risk management department to ensure that that would be an acceptable gift to receive. That would be a procedure certainly, but if
we don't have in policy that the superintendent even has the authority to accept a gift at all, then the procedure is null void. That's my point. Like that right now, this policy, the way it's written, it is stricken through that the superintendent is authorized to do anything. And I think that's wrong. So,
how we fix it, if I'm the only one that thinks that, then that so be it. But I'm okay. I'm okay with that. Can can I just respond to to attorney powers and I don't disagree Dr. Campbell, but I want to respond to the title question and that is indicated because that did come up
during review with staff to ensure that anything that conveys title would still come before the board because we've had discussions about that when conveying title is a bit different. You know, real property, >> um cars, airplanes, uh those sort of things certainly would be covered. Now,
that does not cover the terms and conditions which may be a concern. Maybe it's different. Maybe the board wants to indicate unconditional gifts as attorney power has already said or we can add in under the title section or gifts that have conditions. But conditions can be
they can be very minor uh and and ones that would not concern the board. So I don't know how the board would want to handle that though. Maybe best judgment, >> right? And an example would be we want to donate you a scoreboard, but in doing so we want you to also name this um a
name it ABC stadium or put our advertising all over the you know banner which would be things which may be logical but are things which the board needs to approve. So >> and I understand all of that. I I do I mean so again perhaps it is a monetary
value. I don't I just don't want to limit the opportunity. It just feels awkward that the only people that are allowed to accept awards based on what I'm seeing here or accept gifts, excuse me, is the principal and the director of the school.
I I mean >> I there is another potential um um >> and then they those that they can be accepted by the board chair and superintendent like we
currently do with um so if there's a that that way the board is notified and the board you know that >> I think that >> the reason for the concernation I have is number one things like donating
something which is a white elephant and has a lot of conditions along with it that may not be immediately readily apparent. And number two, we've had people want to donate things that required us to do surveys and required, you know, there there are things that we
accepting the donation can be a trap also. So, um perhaps one way of doing it is saying just like we do with with contracts um under a $50,000 threshold that we say if the board chair and superintendent together sign off on it,
it's great. Or we just >> on our next agenda as an acknowledgement, >> right? >> Or we um allow it to be accepted provisionally. This is the same thing we do with workers comp settlements and things like that. Um it's the the donation is is accepted
but it's accepted um provisionally until the board is notified of it. them. >> So I would suggest we select this superintendent is authorized and then I suggest there be a gift acceptance procedure that is established that spells out the terms and conditions of
which would be applicable because this gives the superintendent the authority to accept or deny a gift based on terms and conditions and then anything beyond that would come directly to the board anyway. But I still believe we need to select this third option here that the
superintendent has the authority to accept or deny a donation. Now there does need to be terms and conditions that are built. I don't know that we have to build those, but it's just a gift acceptance in a nonprofit. You call it a gift acceptance policy, a gift acceptance policy. Policy means
something a little different in our world. So um and I I also still believe and this is still up for conversation I guess but that we need to also allow articles of equipment donated to schools by individuals groups and organizations may be accepted if they contribute to
the operation of the school program. I mean, I believe that and we can put terms and conditions to that as well, but we don't need to limit that a principal could accept some piece of equipment. If if we go to sitebased
budgeting and our principles designate that they're going to have a groundskeeper for each of their high schools, which they could because Martin County does. They had an individual groundskeeper for all their athletic fields. And somebody comes in and says, "I want to donate that awesome
mower that's going to cost $5,000. If we don't have in here that they can accept that piece of equipment, then they can't accept it. And that because right now they're only allowed to accept a gift up to9 $999.
>> I'm gonna stop talking about it. >> We check the one you're referring to. The superintendent is authorized. I would I think that would cover the issue you're describing. >> Okay. >> Um I think because reading through this and going through this with staff, I will tell you it's it's they give you a
lot of options. Sometimes it's not always clear how those options interact with each other. Um but it would seem that the the suggestion that you've made to s check the superintendent number three would probably be the broadest of all the options and I think it would
cover that at least under my reading of this. everything except items that are titled. That would be the only exclusion. So, you'd have the option the superintendent can accept gifts including terms and conditions. Um, you would have principles up to 999 and then you would except for titled
items. Those go before the board. Board acknowledges all items a thousand or more. That would be I think would cover it based on what you're suggesting. That's how I would read it at least. >> I just and I I agree with all of that and I agree with what Dr. Campbell has
said, I just have one caveat or example that I know of, which is Kona Ice and their school give back. And so, we have been unable to recognize Kona Ice at a board meeting because at no individual instance are they giving more than $1,000, but they have given more than
$250,000 over, I think, a four-year period back to our schools collectively. And so our board policy restricts us from recognizing them at a board meeting because no singular instance of donation
is over $1,000 which triggers board recognition. >> Well, and I think that uh I got a solution for you on that one and that is that doesn't trig the $1,000 would trigger the automatic need for board recognition. However, I believe voluntarily we could certainly recognize
them at any time. >> I've been asking for it for 12 months. So, >> so I think if we then allow the superintendent, we check that off. It then it just says all accepted gifts. And so that would you can the superintendent then would have the
ability to compile all of those accepted gifts into one big thank you. Right now >> if the principal is the only one that's accepting and we're not like the superintendent can do that if we do what I think I'm requesting. >> Yes. And I agree and I just think every
year annually at the end of the year we should be recognizing Kona Ice and their give back that they are doing to the school. But I have been told consistently that we can't do it because it's against board policy. >> Okay. So as soon as we check this superintendent is authorized to accept gifts. I think that changes everything. >> It solves the problem.
>> I think it does because all accepted gifts with a value of a thousand dollars or more. And so if you have one entity that is giving $950 to every school in the district, that individual business or organization needs to be acknowledged. We do that
with our backpack program or what like all the different they get all that credit because anyway I I think that there absolutely is a way. I think it's just checking the third option to give superintendent more authority. All right.
Thank you. Now, >> before we go, let's just scan down, see if that changed anything else in the policy that we need to alter. >> The only thing on that one line, though, I'm not certain that I just want the gifts of donations compiled semianually. I think we need to just take that line out because it's null and void whenever
we're already ensuring that the board acknowledges every gift that's $1,000 or more because we're gonna So, let's just take that last sentence out. Right. >> Does that make sense? >> And do you want anything about disclosure of any terms or conditions?
>> Not in policy. I think the terms and conditions need to be written into pursuit. >> Okay. Now, uh again, I with this current administration, I have no no doubt that we wouldn't have any concern with that. Policies aren't written for the people that are in the chair. They're written for the position. >> Okay. Okay. And I know that at certain
times within our history, that may have been something the board wished to not encourage the use of sort of a scratch your back, I'll scratch mine thing, which could run into 112 issue,
chapter 112 issues as well. um that the issue of terms and conditions. I'm going to donate this, but in turn the term and condition is I'm going to install it for you and so you're going to hire me to do this or you know those are kind of
things that can arise and in fact in the past have not with this administration not with our prior administration but they are things that that have in the past happened. So um when you put it in policy you do give the ability of um one
person to accept uh and so of course that means that you need to be able to place a lot of trust in the person but then positionally what do you what do you run into if you've got if you've got someone who has the authority to accept
things with terms and conditions and there's no disclosure mandated of those terms and conditions. you the board never knows what they are >> and that can run into some problems for the board. So it may be something to address later, not now, >> but it's something to consider and it's
part of my job to kind of point out >> risk factors. >> We just need to have a new policy written on gift acceptance if if that's in fact what you're asking for us to have. And so perhaps there is one that exists. I would say it potentially is a terms and conditions procedure in
Niola's book, but maybe it's a policy. And I would just ask that we consider that moving forward. Not for the purpose of today. I mean, we need to move this forward. U I I want to give us the flexibility to have the superintendent
at least in this cycle to be able to accept donations and then possibly the next cycle is when we can address what your concern is. >> Fair enough. Um and we have So, looks like anything else in the policy that you see that might need to tweak or
anything? Okay, we can move on from there. Let's see. This was 7230. Now 7240 site acquisition 7440.01 video surveillance and electronic
monitoring. 7440.03 small unmanned aircraft systems. This was pulled by staff. >> If I if I just go back to the last one quickly just to say that's a brand new policy despite the minimal colors we see. It's a brand new policy. And if
there's any question about the drone policy that was pulled by staff and recommended by staff. >> The drone policy has always been a thing. >> There's a typo there. >> Uh under what? that green area >> on which one? >> Um 7440.03.
It's just in that green. There's a small S. >> Oh, we're we're we're deleting that one anyway. >> That's okay. >> Yeah, >> we are. >> Which one? >> 74403 was pulled by staff. >> The S the I'm sorry, the S U.
>> Yes, that's supposed to be that way. >> That's how it was written. Yeah. I don't know that I agree with it, but that's how it was written to me. Feels weird to me, too. >> Okay. >> It's a small S for the one's not going to be put in. >> No, that that is that's going forward.
>> Why did I say pulled by staff? >> Because staff pulled it for these edits. >> This was staff. This is not a Neola recommendation. This is a staff recommendation. Uh there was a question about being able to use drones at sporting events. um because currently
the policy is very restrictive and according to the research done that it's not FHSAA regulations are not as restrictive as the policy provided. There's more restrictions when you get to I believe it's it might be all playoff games but at least the state
final games. So the question was about using drones at like football games for instance and then there's going to be procedures developed and I've talked to Mr. Tucker about this to ensure the procedures are developed so both teams are having fair access, make sure safety is considered and so on. But this was
basically to expand the use of drones so it wasn't going to be so restrictive during sporting events. Any other questions? Okay. 7530.01 boardowned wireless communication devices.
7530.02 2 staff and school officials use of wireless communication devices. >> This is a new policy as well. 7540.02 2 web content apps and services
7544 use of social media. >> So what is that 7544 >> 7544 and this was parallel policies with 1213 3213
4213 75 40.02 102 and 7544. The main difference is that they've been revised to recognize that Twitter is now called X. The revision is not based in any change in law.
So it's just a update to existing stuff. >> So every time one new one comes on, we have to change it. No, it's just we we we named as a matter of course we we named the ones that are most in use and
then of course now it's not really it's defunct. >> I think it'd be important for all of our staff to review the last p last section of this uh policy. >> Read it out loud. It basically says the
use of personal communication devices at work to access social media for personal use because essentially you should not be using social media during work for personal use. That's sums it up, right?
>> Unless you're on a break or on your lunch. >> Correct. Right. Otherwise, you get a timestamp on Facebook >> that potentially indicates what time you were posting it. >> Correct. >> From your classroom. >> Okay. Ready to move into 8,000
operations. >> We are ready. >> PO 8100 interlocal agreements. >> Love me some interlocal agreements. 8280 nursing mothers. This was uh
>> that's it's another it's another one of those. >> Yeah, there we we we had parallel >> actual >> this is the actual >> this is the actual one. >> Yeah, the other one >> all the other ones >> other ones are gone. This is a new one. I I want to add real I don't know M I told M ahead of time but that X at the bottom should go before principal. It
was intended to select principal. Right now it's selecting a blank spot which is incorrect but that's what the staff intended. Okay. >> Okay. 8330, student records. 8405, School Safety and Security.
>> This one had a lot of different options, so I guess we're just not choosing some of the options, kind of an important one. So if everybody wants to take a moment, you can read. >> I just have a question. I'm not sure that it's it's just related to this might not be part of the policy. Um but
I've noticed as I visit schools the are the the vehicles for our officers are not necessarily near the front of the campus anymore. So is that a change in in what is required through safe schools
or through our SRO's? Does anyone know? I don't think I don't think it's specifically in the contract um with our law enforcement agencies that they had to be specific. But I think that was just by choice when they were >> though. Every time it comes up they
mention the fact that visibility is a is a big reason why that it's a great thing to have a officer's patrol vehicle there. it is one of the main um pieces of the conversation when we talked about you know do we want to go with a
security company or but then we wouldn't have that vehicle that marked vehicle out in front of the school. So I just wondered if something had changed or if there was a reason because it's I felt like for a very long time the officer's
vehicles were in strategically you know you you know either on the front and the side different positions at the school and then for six months or so the vehicles have not I mean it's been noticeable they've been set back further on the campus and so I didn't know if
there was a reason for that. So just a question I'm I'm asking. Yeah, I haven't noticed that. Um, but that's something we can just um I can maybe get some information from you and to inquire. It might be for some other reason that we're not aware of.
>> I just it it was an important piece of our decision making originally. So, I just I was curious. Thank you. >> I do see an error um in this section. I don't know what page it is on, but it's missing. It says the school safety
specialist is responsible for notifying the superintendent within and then it says choose one but nothing is chosen for and probably the word within needs to be taken out >> might have been missed in review so I
don't have a staff recommendation Yeah, that the two items are does the super does a school safety specialist notify the superintendent immediately or no? Uh immediately and no later than same day
of receipt or some other time frame. Any notice of suspected deficiency of the school safety specialist receives from the office of safe schools. So if school safety specialist receives something from office of state schools, he needs to
inform superintendent on what time frame. >> You have a recommendation of the first box being checked. >> There we are. >> So if we've checked the first box, it needs to then we need to eliminate the word within because within immediately doesn't work. Okay.
Anything else on this policy? >> A 8406. Reports of suspicious activity and potential threats to schools. 8407 safe school officers. 8415 emergency and crisis management. 8420 Emergency Management, Emergency
Preparedness, and Emergency Response Agencies. >> 8420.01 Epidemics. >> I'm sorry. >> It's deleted. >> That's I'm sorry, that's deleted. Which one? >> 8420.01. >> 8420.01. Epidemics and pandemics been
deleted. >> We're just not having those anymore. >> Yeah, we decided those aren't fun. Same >> 8431 preparedness for toxic hazard and asbestos hazard 8450 control of casual contact
communicable diseases 8450.01 pro protective facial coverings during pandemic or epidemic events. >> We got rid of it. That's deleted >> and that has been deleted. >> We're not going back, right? Is that what that means? >> We never had that policy.
>> Yep. >> Okay. >> We complied with governor's executive order when needed and then we never adopted a policy. >> This is one of those old policies that were discussed that has been sitting in the draft folder, I believe, and has to be processed. We never had this policy.
Staff is not recommending to accept the policy. 8452 automatic automated external defibrillators AEDs. >> My only question on this one is obviously no later than July 1 of 2027 is what it's about to say. Do we have a
plan for how we're going to get AEDs in all of our schools or do we already have them in all schools? >> I did talk with Mr. Tucker about this and he's got several resources. He's, you know, he's trying to figure out what our best options are and he plans to
present to the board. >> Most schools have two, at least high schools, like most high schools have one in the gym and one in the office, right, Dr. >> B? This So, we are already in compliance. Mr. >> Yes, ma'am. And the hospital district is actively already working on replacing
some of our older um equipment. >> Okay. >> There are so many great things that are already happening. So, it's nice to be able to say, "Yes, we're doing that. Yes, we're on that." >> That's why we ask. >> Yes. >> 8462. Student abuse, abandonment, and
neglect. >> 8470. Registered sexual predators, sex offenders. 8475 Criminal Background Screening for Contractor Access. 8500 Food Service Program
8531 Free and Reduced Price Meals. >> 8540 Vending Machines. This was >> rescended. >> I just one quick pause going back to the food breakfast which is 8500.
Um on the third page it talks about the options for breakfast. I just think that the time limitations there um I mean other as long as we're okay with at least 15 minutes um because I we have students who arrive
late on the bus and we offer them a grab-and- go option which I don't think is reflective in this language. So school breakfast meals shall be available to students at all schools in the district. Each elementary, middle, and high school shall make a breakfast meal available if a student arrives at school on the bus less than 15 minutes
before the first bell rings. and shall allow the student at least 15 minutes to eat. To me, that is not reflective of the practice that we're currently operating, which is essentially we feed them until the bell rings and then we keep feeding them until they stop showing up. So, I just think probably it's not best to have a policy that
reflects something that is really very I think this is completely this essentially to me reads after 15 minutes to the bell, we stop serving breakfast. >> It we um we continue feeding them if they ride to school on a school bus. Yes. It doesn't matter what time they get there. If they are not on a school
bus, we do limit access to the cafeteria um when the bell rings. >> So, what I'm saying though is this says shall make a breakfast meal available if a student arrives at school on the bus less than 15 minutes before the first bell rings and shall allow the student
at least 15 minutes to eat. So, the less than 15 minutes, does that mean negative 15 minutes, negative 60 minutes? That means when they get there, they can sit in the cafeteria for 15 minutes. >> The first 15 minutes. So, so they're not not when it's mentioned the second time. When it's mentioned the first time, make
a breakfast meal available if a student arrives at school on the bus less than 15 minutes before the first bell. Does that mean less than 15 all the way to 45 minutes after the first bell? >> We we could remove that because we keep
feeding them. That's what I'm trying to get at is I think that there's no reason for a a time limitation there because our practice, our best practice always is to just continue feeding the children. However, I don't know that this is happening in practice like they're saying take your lunch and go to
class. >> That's what I wanted to say. So, once the bell has rung, they take their food with them in route to the classroom. However, if their bus is arriving right close to the bell, they we typically let them sit in the cafeteria and enjoy
their quick little >> So, I just think our we need to our policy. We have a policy that reflects practice different than that. Some of that would be procedures um because that would look differently. >> But then I think we should remove all of the time stuff from the policy and let
the procedure speak to the time limitations because right now we have a policy that has very strict time limitations >> that we're not following. >> Right. >> And they're not sitting down and eat. >> I wonder what the statute says. >> It's called grab and go.
>> I mean literally right. So they're not they're not going to go sit for 15 minutes. >> And I think we've all seen that to class. I just want to make sure. >> And teachers want them most of them most teachers want them in class eating the grab and go in class, >> right? >> 100%. So they're not missing reading
instruction. >> Who knows which statute >> because that's what we had to do first. I just want to make sure that that Florida statute reference there doesn't actually indicate 15 minutes since it's in all the options lists 15 1515 15.
It's like >> where that comes from. >> Yeah. >> So I I believe and I'm I'm going to try to rereading this. Um if a student arrives on a bus less than 15 minutes before school, they're allowed 15 minutes to eat their food. I don't think
it says where they're allowed to have that 15 minutes. >> It doesn't. >> So I I think you could granted I guess part of the issue would be if you're in route to your classroom, do you get five extra minutes in that class to finish your food? I think that's probably what it would be. >> And the 15 minutes is entrance the
statute. It says that the student will shall allow the student at least 15 minutes to eat the breakfast. >> I don't know that it has to be in the cafeteria. >> Oh, >> it doesn't say that. But I I I heard in the cafeteria that the sit down, but
it's I don't see it in there written anywhere. >> So does that makes So I I just want to kind of like if you don't mind come back and say if you arrive less than 15 minutes before the the bell rings you by bus you will get 15 minutes. That's essentially what this policy is saying.
Is is that what the board would like or is it something different? >> I just don't think it reads like that. So how you just said it makes a whole lot of sense but the way it reads is not like that. I mean, it could >> I think the way it reads is that if if a if the school starts at 9 and the
student gets there at 8:50, then the student has until 9:05 to eat. >> But that could be in the hallway in route to the classroom or outside the classroom door >> or in the classroom. But it's exactly taken out of statute. I
mean, the wording is exactly that. >> And I said we keep >> each school operating a breakfast program shall make a breakfast meal available if a student arrives at school on the school bus less than 15 minutes before the first bill and shall allow the student at least 15 minutes to eat
the breakfast. So it does not statute does not dictate that we continue to feed breakfast. It actually says that we only feed breakfast to those that get there within 15 minutes of the bell ringing. Um, that's not what we do in practice. So, we're doing more than what
statute actually forces us to. So, we're quabbling squabbling I don't qu over something's not right. Um, over the 15 minutes to eat their breakfast when in actuality we're already in practice doing more than what statute requires.
So, okay. We're in complaints. >> I just didn't want it to be limiting, >> right? >> It's very wordy >> because again, really, it only requires us to provide breakfast to anybody who's arriving by bus less than 15 minutes
before the first bill by statute. >> I guess it's somewhat dependent upon it's somewhat dependent on the graband go type meals. If they're if it's not a graband- go type meal, then necessarily the students have to sit there and eat and we don't want to make sure they I
can understand someone's impetus in writing this was to make sure that if this if the meal is not a graband go type of meal that they need to have, you know, more than five minutes to wolf it down. So, and it sounds like what I'm
hearing is that we have largely migrated to being able to give grab and go meals for students who are running late to the bus. >> The whole idea is to get them in the class. >> They love. >> Okay.
>> So, how do we want to modify We don't I think >> because the the selection here is between your option one and option two. So both of them encompass the 15 minutes language but the difference in option
one and option two is option one is for elementary, middle and high and option two is only for kindergart only for elementary school kids. I mean that's the difference. So we're still going with option one. Oh yeah.
>> Yeah. Well, and all of this is also contingent on the grant we continue to receive from USDA. So if that FDA goodness gracious, I'm not thinking straight this morning or afternoon. See,
it's not even morning anymore. I was thinking straight this morning. >> I mean, if we're It's fine. I just I thought it was limiting. So, if it's not if it's not >> I don't think that it >> limiting. We certainly don't have to stay on it.
>> Keep it as is. Rescended >> moving forward. >> Forward. >> Okay. Uh both 8540 and 8550 have been rescended based on the fact that there were changes that affect that in 8500. Um
8610 transportation route planning 8660 alternative transportation methods. >> This is your van one. Oh yes, we're finally here. >> At least I think it is. I believe it is. Yes.
>> Among other things, House Bill 1 modified Florida Statute 106.21 and 106.22 to give greater flexibility to school boards regarding student transportation, including by buses and other vehicles. These three policies are revised in
light of the flexibility afforded by HP1. Of note, since most school districts currently use utilize school buses for student transportation, policy 8600 has not been substantially revised. If necessary, revisions to policy 8600
will be revisited in a future date. Um, also, um, Senate Bill 766 gives school districts the option to use school bus infraction detection systems to increase public safety. uh includes optional language in the event the school board
desires to utilize these systems on school buses. As to this alternative transportation methods specifically, we've done quite a bit of looking into it and research over over uh past year and uh if you want to report on your understanding of it at this point, I can
add it. >> Yeah. Well, essentially what happened was what had happened was about a year ago I was sitting at a table with coaches at FCA coaches breakfast and they brought up to me and they said why do all these other districts get to come in 15 passenger vans and we don't get to
come in 15 passenger vans which is how I stumbled across this passion project. Well, essentially what we figured out at the very end of this, probably in about three weeks ago, is that those districts
are purchasing those vans directly from the vendor with the third row removed, making them a 10 passenger van. So they essentially those vans typically have the two seats in the front and then they have a three three um six, seven, eight.
Yeah. And then another three, right? So it's either three or four rows regardless purchased correctly the through the vendor they have them delivered to the school with the bench the back bench already removed which then leads them to only be the driver
plus nine pass nine other travelers which meets all of the expectations. So then I believe Lyon County very recently just basically went ahead and purchased um and Mr. Tucker could expand on this, but purchased brand new
Sprinter vans, which are 15 passenger. However, they purchased them with the back row removed. So, they when you arrive there, you're thinking they have these 15 passenger vans, but they don't actually. They've had the row removed. So, Mr. Tucker's conversation with me
has been essentially looking at that annual budget that the board has discussed for athletics and talking through how we can incorporate some of these for some of our schools that would benefit most from them. We're talking schools like potentially think about Lake High. There are times when
Lakewear High needs to travel and they literally cannot get a bus and they're not Belleview High School which has two drivers and two buses on staff that can just drive the transportation their own bus. Um, but to that point too, even Mr. Pixley shared with me, who's the
assistant AD at Belleview and is one of the CDL drivers, he drove seven kids in a full bus two hours away to a meet. What a waste of gas and resources. So, we really need to, in my opinion, board,
this policy is correct. there is no way we can buy a 15 passenger van, but it took a whole year of investigation to basically realize they're buying them without the third row or the fourth row, whatever it is. So, as a board, I think we will see further discussion from Mr. Tucker in the coming years about
prioritizing potentially spending some money on some vans that would give our schools opportunity to because you think about which teams you could take. I mean, girls basketball, I can think about North Marian, golf, tennis, girls basketball. There's lots of smaller sports that could just tra be
transported in um just a nine passenger with a driver. So anyhow, that's where this all came from. >> Okay. And attorney powers, if we were to use piggyback agreements, that would probably already stipulate exactly how they're being ordered. >> That's true. >> There you go.
>> Done deal. >> I'm still stuck on the 15 passenger vans. So there >> okay now I've >> I've looked at this from every possible angle whatsoever the last year of research. Let me tell you the the basic the boiled down is at there is a sort of
cuto off limit at the 15 passenger van size mark. Those are sprinter vans. Those are those are the kind of um >> elderly buses things like that. Those have to in order for schools to purchase them, >> right? >> Those have to be registered as a
specific multi-function school bus, which means there are a bunch of different safety provisions and everything else have to be met. >> Why we bought the ones we bought, right? >> Correct. And I think this is more of a state legislator discussion because you do not need a different license to drive a 15 passenger van. You just need a
regular license. You don't need a passenger endorsement. You don't need anything. This is something the state legislature has basically said K12 schools cannot use 15 passenger buses. But for the record, a daycare which houses K12 students can put their kids
in a 15 passenger. I own one. So that's the part that I don't understand. If a daycare in DCF will license a a a 15 passenger van to be driven with up to age 12 age students in it, then why can't a K12 school do it?
>> Understood. Why are they ordering it without that last section or two that changes? >> Because if >> it has to be purchased as either a multi-function school activity bus, which it has a specific designation Mhm.
>> Which is what the 15 passengers would be. Or it has to be purchased as not one. >> Right. >> And we can only buy the ones that are not purchased. Not one. >> Order it without that last seat. >> But it has to be ordered from the manufacturer with the it has to be sold
like the bill of sale has to say. >> It is. >> It's just a plain old van. >> It's literally just red tape for public education. That's literally what it boils down to because daycarees are doing it all the time completely within regulation. It's just K12 red tape. >> They order it without the last seat and
then do they put it back in? >> No, it's just at that point it has more >> I mean is that what we're alluding to here? >> I don't know what Lyon County is doing. I certainly would say we should not do that because if you got in an accident from a liability perspective that would be bad news. >> I'm wondering why that was my question. Why are they doing that? Is it then they
can have more room for equipment back there? >> It's got to be weight. No, they're taking out the row so they could meet the 10 seat belt rule. They're taking out the row so they can say it's not 15 seat belts, it's only 10 seat belts. So I I mean >> and then it does allow for cargo space and also >> they don't they don't build a 10
passenger. So you have to take out the road because like a 10 passenger vehicle doesn't exist. So you either have the nine or the seven which Mr. Oanic will say a nine passenger is actually cheaper than buying a sprinter and removing. However, a sprinter and removing gives
you more room for athletic equipment which you don't have with a standard nine seater >> looking for the some districts are spending more money like Leon did to buy a fleet of athletic vans which have more space in them.
>> Dr. Brewer has >> if I can just add this also is for our extracurriculars even such as some of our career and technical programs. We're always looking for ways to move students in large groups and so this would include that group as well.
>> Thanks. You know, I was just trying to understand the mindset, you know, behind it and why we're we're not doing it. I know this has come up before, but yeah, you're right. It's a total legislative thing. It's like >> there are also some big restrictions and whether we can use them for um we can
use them for transport and special events. Transport between home and school is another factor and there's a bunch of other things get involved there as well. So um but yes for for activity buses and >> going to events that's perfect for athletics.
>> So anyhow it is what it is is basically the the re the end of this is it is what it is. However I think that we can lobby from a legislative perspective to see some movement on these restrictions and then Mr. Tucker is going to work on how
we can meet this need with some of our schools, >> especially since our transportation allocation doesn't even begin to cover well what about half of what we spend. >> Well, in Florida has already >> we need some deregulation here. >> Florida's already relaxed its restriction quite a bit. So that we
Florida isn't our problem. Our problem is that federal legislation at this point still is what is our sticking point. If Florida law on the topic did not exist at all, said do whatever you want. Um, we would still be run into the
fact that federal law has severe restrictions on on exactly that. So, >> I'm sure it's well intended and well meaning and protecting student safety is always paramount, but um, times have changed and and just vehicles in general have gotten so much more safe. I mean,
we never even used to have seat belts. Short seats. >> That's true. windows that actually went down. >> Your mom just stuck her arm out. >> Exactly. >> You did. >> That was a seat belt. >> Yep. >> All right. Moving on to PO80,
religious and other ceremonies and observances. That concludes our 8000 section. Now we're moving on to the 9000s and final section, community relations. 9211 booster clubs and other outside
support organizations. >> We left off 9140 >> 9140. >> Oh, I skipped a page is what I did. I I picked up two pages when I got rid of the last one. Going back. 9140 Citizens
Advisory Committee 9141 Business Advisory Council. >> Nola rescended this, but our district had never accepted this policy in the first place. So, we're just letting you know because we have to bring it up and formally reject it.
9,200 volunteers. >> And that's the school chaplain piece that we >> deleted. >> Yep. Deleted. >> 9200.01 volunteer ch school chaplain program deleted.
>> 9211 Booster Clubs and other outside support organizations. And we're not going to revisit the school chaplain thing again. I just want to make sure. >> Well, I'm not against revisiting it. I just think if it needs to be pulled out and addressed separate from
where we are. And I don't disagree that there was work to be done to strengthen which we haven't done yet um to strengthen the language um for the inclusiveness yet. Well, the policy that you see >> restriction,
>> the policy you see listed here under 9200.01 was Neiola's attempt at trying to make something that worked. >> We put considerable effort into trying to get a policy together that worked for us in this district, which is the one
that you saw earlier. Um, I believe under no circumstances would we want to adopt this one in particular. Um, so we're we're definitely asking for rejection of this one. Um, but as to whether we pursue one in the future, I
will say that I haven't checked lately, but I'm still not aware of any other jurisdiction that has stepped up to the plate and decided they wanted to bite off. >> We I mean this when we left this conversation, I know at least I personally was disappointed um where we
landed even though I I couldn't approve it either. You know, I couldn't go to sleep at night approving it the way it was written. But we really I I believe we're looking for some guidelines from the state like some sort of
accountability on who can step on our campuses >> to serve as a chaplain >> like a regulatory agency of sorts like a third party that's willing to essentially >> certify >> well or at least acknowledge like who is a chaplain and who isn't a chaplain. >> Correct. and who's going to pay for the
lawsuits. >> And that that definition of a chap is so broad. >> Yes. That vague and very vague and is too great. And to put that responsibility on a district, >> right, is passing. >> Agreed. >> Well, it might be worth bringing up to the legislators that they passed
something that not one single district has decided to use and maybe that would be a um indicator that they need to revisit the language. And you know what's interesting is that I've heard absolutely nothing from any legislator
that I'm aware of and correct me if I'm wrong that has brought this back to the forefront. So to me the silence is deafening. It's disappointing because I think at some level all of us understood and supported you know the value. >> Yes. And the need >> and the need the you know the mental
health issues the whole thing you know we went through it. So, I guess my input would be until we're able to get something much more solid. Um, and I don't mind, you know, asking about that and if we if the board while we're up
advocating wants to raise that question, why not? But, uh, other than that, I think we have a lot on our plates and I'm really not that interested in bringing it back unless there's something with some meat to bring it back for. Well, it's just pretty evident
that it was something that was really loud. So, the legislator pushed it through because there was a lot of noise and then they've done nothing with it and and they didn't make any adjustments to it. And so, obviously, no school district has accepted it because there's holes in what we need. >> And what's interesting is is that, you
know, just personally, when I was asked, you know, what would it take for me to change my mind, so to speak, I said I think that's a question for the state attorneys to talk about and then bring us something back. you know, it's just a liability that for
this district does not didn't make sense to me in the current form. >> It was so I just wanted to be sure that the conversation we had before and I want the remembrance on this did include this model policy from the
Florida Department of Education. We our previous conversation included that or did not? >> Yes, it did. >> It did. Okay. That was that was going to be my question because I mean they they do outline at least the graduate degree in counseling and theology and demonstrate at least two years as a
chaplain and all of that and I mean they did create a model policy. I anyway all right we can move on. I just I I don't want the conversation to just continue to be like, "Okay, yep, we're good. Let's move on from that."
Because we did spend a lot of time on it with a significant interest in us adopting something that would actually be very beneficial to students. Um, but we're not there yet. So
>> next21 9211 booster clubs and other outside support organizations >> 9271 personalized education programs students 9800 charter schools >> I'm Sorry. Personalized education
program. That is a new policy. So that is that all students are going to have PEPS. Yes. >> As school districts are aware, the Florida legislature recently included
new statutory language allowing for a student to participate in a personalized education program. Um several Florida statutes involved 102.01 101 102.395 PEP students must be provided with the
same flexibility and opportunities as home educational students. Accordingly, Niola created a new policy specific to PEP students since this is a new category of students in Florida. Nola is monitoring legislative changes as well as state board of education rulemaking
in the event policy revisions are necessary. Um, Florida statute allows PE students to use scholarship funds for contracted services provided by a public school or school district, including classes. As such, an option exists in the new policy
for entering into such a contract. Yeah, I just wish that they were actually saying that every student in the state had a personalized education plan >> as opposed to this being just the
scholarship students that are in this what they're calling a PEP, if that makes sense. Like if every student was required to have >> the equivalent of an EP or an IEP of some sort. So that I know that's a cumbersome ask. Bear with me staff. But
if every >> But if every student had that knowledge at all times, being tracked as required by law for EPS and IEPs, I think um that would just be a benefit to
everyone. Sorry, soapbox. I'm jumping off of it now. Charter schools 9,800. >> Well, money follows a student and you know, as every student, money's following, >> and it's hard enough to get a IEP. >> It is. for every student. >> It is, but >> they should just automatically have
>> If we want every student to succeed, then let's talk about every student. >> Yeah. >> PEP, I gifted. >> That concludes >> loving them labels. >> That concludes our policy review.
>> Shall we go back? Yeah, let's run it back. >> Let's run it back and get this bylaws thing taken care of. We're not >> Let's go back. What was What? What was that? >> It is on page 34. It's 0169.1. >> What page? >> Uh 34.
>> All right. So, wait, what were we talking about? >> It's public participation at board meeting. >> Okay. Sorry, I had to put my >> I know. >> How about we start by summarizing what we agree on and then hammer out the rest of it? I think that's a great idea.
>> All right, Terry, did you want to summarize or you want me to sum want to try to summarize? I know that we did share it. >> There ought to be a time limit. We ought to let people speak and we ought to figure out exactly how long we want him to speak >> and we all have to agree to abide by it.
>> See how precise attorney powers was. He can do it. Look at that. >> And we agreed to three minutes, two minutes, and one minute. >> Yes. >> The formula formula. So, a sliding scale. >> Yep. >> Hard stop of 30 minutes at the beginning
and 30 minutes at the end. >> You only get to participate in one or the other. That was what you read from Lee County. It's you're you're submitting for one or the other. >> Even if you arrive late and you say, "May I please please please?" >> I I don't know that I want to permit or
uh exclude them from participating in both. So, let's say that you've come and it is something that the board is voting on that directly impacts you. I don't want to exclude you also from then having an opportunity to speak during public comment just about the general
whatever just happened. >> Do we want to require that if you were going to be at the end of meeting discussion that you still have to notify us by 5:40 >> at 6 o' >> said six o'clock. I I think we're going
to need to go with like 550 or something because I mean depending on the number of recognitions we have, we might be in public comment by 5:50. Six o'clock is we're not always in public comment by that time. >> I think Miss Martinez Young was shaking
her head a little bit. I mean, we just kind of depends on how many recognitions. >> When was the last time we were starting public comment at six o'clock? >> We have >> during the summer. >> Maybe this summer. >> I mean, our literal last board meeting. our literal last board meeting, >> which was quick, >> which was a very quick meeting. We only
had like one recognition, one big recognition, and we were kicked off into board business prior to six o'clock. >> Yeah. But wasn't that because we were anticipating we were going to have a lot of public commenters? >> I've wondered about that if the recognitions were shortened up because we were anticipating having a lot of
>> public comment. >> Yeah. No, we were I mean, we were through recognition. >> I know. and everything and starting the work of the business prior to 6 p.m. >> Right. Last last Tuesday in the summer we don't have recognitions often. So I mean like seriously whatever >> 550
>> 550 I mean based on practice you think 550 will get us there. >> What what are we at now? What is >> 540? >> It says 5. >> I think I think making it 5:45 is appropriate because it's a nice it's a quarter hour and if somebody can be here at 5:45 they can put their name in. The
question that I also think that we need to answer though is is there really any reason for somebody to even present a public speaker form at 5:45 if they're going to sit through the meeting and wait until 8:00 to give a
to give a session or >> Yes. Because it's not always at 8:00. Sometimes at 6:30, sometimes at 7:20. There's you need to be here by 5:45 because there is no hard stop and we're we can't set a time that then we have to sit around and wait until to see if
someone will show up for public comment at the end. >> And most often, sorry, I'm we're just talking over each other at this point. It's late. Um, most often the meetings that go the longest are because of extended public
comment time that happens in the beginning. >> Unrelated. Most often those are not related to our agenda items honestly really ever. So I mean we had somebody come talk about the superintendent search not on the
board agenda. Somebody come and talk about >> board of early learning. >> Board of Early Learning not on the agenda. >> But it but we had talked about it at a work session. So >> we did but not on the agenda >> knowledge. So that's what makes this a little tricky. But the point is, >> it's not tricky to me. If if it's not on
the agenda for that board meeting, >> then that comment's at the end >> and Okay. And that's But at least they get to talk. >> Yes. >> So, I'm I'm good with the 5:45. And I think it's a point well taken that if since we can't we can't >> exactly time how long our meetings are
going to be. And it is important for the board clerk to have all of her forms and so we know who's, you know, how many we're going to have. It's just more organizational and I think that's just good practice >> and that that our board comment then
would be after their public comment. Sometimes our board comments can go 45 minutes also. So >> that's true. >> So if we have that happen I I still think that those speakers at most would still be potentially able to speak by
seven. >> Yeah. Usually, I mean, and maybe even May way earlier, maybe. >> So, would we allow someone to have two comments, one that was related to the agenda and one unrelated? >> I would. >> Okay. >> If they're separate,
>> right? And they have two separate forms. >> Same thing. >> So, we may need to change the color of our forms. >> That's why I was saying two forms. One form that has the agenda item, >> but we already have two. So I have to have a third color because I have a peach one for public hearings and discipline >> and the lime green is for
>> discipline I think is >> what whichever one is peach and one is lime with a lilac color or something. >> We got to throw in a golden rod. Let's go or blue. >> I'm just saying I think the one that's for the beginning of the meeting should clearly indicate the agenda item they're speaking to. And if they need help from
the clerk who's at the table to help them identify that then that's fine. But if they can't identify that, then they get moved and prompted to fill out the other form, which then puts them at the end of the meeting. >> 100. >> And for anybody who's listening to this, this is rule making. We're talking about
what we want to come forth when we vote on this. So if you want to come and weigh in on how you feel like we're putting our bylaws together to for public comment, that'll be the time to come tell us. >> Right. >> Right. This won't be official until we vote on it. >> Right. This won't be official until we
vote on it agenda >> and it'll be on an agenda and anybody can come and speak during public comment as it currently stands >> for up to five minutes. >> For up to five minutes. >> So, what else did we need to argue over then? >> So, you like the sliding scale, but we need >> recap that. Let me let me wrap all that
cap that just quickly. >> You heard those cats up. Okay, let's see. Um >> 5:45 >> 5:45 >> 30 minutes at the beginning, 30 minutes at the end. >> Two different forms. form for >> two different forms. You can talk at both if you have two different things to talk about.
>> Sliding scale on time. >> Sliding scale on time. Going 3 two and one. >> Yeah. We need to be able to determine what the >> 0 to 10 11 to 20 21 plus. >> That's what it said in the >> So 0 to 10 gets three minutes. >> Right. >> Yes. 11 to 20 gets two minutes.
>> Well, 20 2 minutes would be 40 minutes. >> Okay. 11 to 19 then. No. >> What are you saying? No. What I think what it's important to note though that >> add up to 30. >> It got to add to 30. >> It has to add to 30 if we're hard stopping at 30.
>> Yes. >> So like 0 to 10 is to 30. >> So what this says in the drafting note is 11 to 20 speakers receive up to two minutes. >> That's theirs. Z. >> That's because they weren't to keep reducing it to 30 minutes total.
>> Thing is each of these has >> I'm reading a drafting note. So ours would be 0 to 10, three minutes, >> right? >> 0 to 15 >> or 11 >> or 11 to 15, two minutes. >> 11 to 15 would be two minutes. >> And then um 16 to 30 minutes. >> 16 to 20 would be essentially
>> one minute. >> One minute. >> 15 to 30. >> I you guys are we really going to stick to this? >> Only 20 minutes. >> I I can't wait. >> I cannot wait. >> Okay. No backing down. >> You got it in writing. I can worry about me. Miss Martinez Young, did you have something you want to share? Um just
>> you did just processing. >> I'm processing. Let me process. >> Okay. >> Trying to calculate. >> So 0 to 10 3 minutes. >> So that's 30 minutes obviously. >> 11 to 15 2 minutes >> which is at 15 that'd be 15 * 2 is 30. Right. >> Right. But 16 to 20 you're only 20
minutes. >> Well it's really a minute 15. If we want to split the cap >> 16 to 30 one minute. >> You're only the if you're the only public speaker do you get 30 minutes? >> No. do not >> zero zero to 10 gets three minutes.
>> But if you are guy number 16, then you just made it so that everybody only gets one minute. So >> correct. >> So don't be guy number 16 >> or do or do >> or do. >> So if we have if we have 10 people speak, they only get three minutes each. >> Yes.
>> And so why would there be any other conversation? So like if >> because if 14 people show up to talk, >> then we're going to divide it. They're all going to get two minutes. >> We're fitting we're gonna happen to stay in the 30 minutes. >> At at five minutes
>> at 5:45, you're going to count your forms for the before the meeting. And if there are, >> which is probably highly unlikely, but if there are 16 people who show up to talk on an agenda item, they're all 16 are getting one minute. >> I was just I'm like you. I'm not a math person. So, >> you really don't want to be the 11th
person because then you're changing it for every Now you're down to two minutes. >> Okay. We can stick to that. And I think we need to post the um um post it somewhere on our site. Whatever it is that >> Well, Yamaly needs to make us a nice little PSA proposing.
>> Put it out there up front. Put it out there up front. >> Yeah. It needs to be like right behind the clerk that and it shows. >> Yeah. >> Number >> if it's 0 to 10. >> Yes. >> I mean, if we posting it, >> make it visual. >> Yeah. We're making it visual. No, it's no discussion. So, we're actually giving
ourselves up to an hour of public comment, which is more than we actually say we give ourselves now. >> Well, except we've never I mean, we've never held >> more than what we say we That's what I said. More than what we say we give each other now. >> Right. So, we're giving more time and
that's good. >> We're being more accommodating. >> Will will the after um agenda item presentation be aired? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Because it'll be before our board comment. >> Yeah. And also why not like >> same same scale same scale
>> same scale for the after but it's a fresh everybody starts back at zero >> right >> so if there's 10 people for the after then they'll all get three minutes >> it has to be a non-aggendaized topic >> and any person over 30 does not get to talk. So when 60 of them showed up to
talk about books 30 of them wouldn't get to talk. >> Not that session. >> Not that session. >> Not that session. And you can't. We still say that you can't give your time to somebody else. I can't remember. No time. >> No yielding. Thank you. Of time. >> We need a sign for this in the lobby,
too. Oh, definitely. Because if people coming in and they've you know what if this passes, it'll be a change. >> I think we need to post on that. It needs to say what time they need to have their forms in in that scale. And that way we can we can say with due diligence
that we did our part. >> They need to be on laminated posters. >> Correct. Correct. that can just be hung up and taken down and stored somewhere till the next meeting. >> Correct. >> Well, and there I would like to come up with a way of effectively communicating how many if we go over that 10
threshold. It would be nice if there was an effective way at the beginning of the meeting so that people could modify their speeches because people come in with a prepared speech for three minutes. >> And so if we go into that 11 well that too. So if we go into that 11 to 15 and
then that gets scaled back to two minutes or even gets spelled back to one minute. I would like prior to 5:45 when essentially you know there needs to be some break in maybe at 5:45 almost like an alarm goes off of sorts and maybe an
in between recognitions we say just as a reminder to the audience we've now hit 5:45 we have 16 people prepared to speak for this mornings which means they'll all get one minute right >> um just so that we are making that notification so people can because I >> on the script >> correct well but it won't be on the script until we get to it and sometimes
we don't get to it until 610 10. >> So if I just think it'd be nice to say it once the time has hit because then people would be able to prepare and change their speech if necessary. >> Right. >> Right. >> And and that happened to me at the state board meeting when I presented for Oakrest. They quickly said at the last
minute, you no longer have five minutes, you have three. And it really does impact >> Yeah. >> It it threw me. Yeah. >> Y So I just think if we could remember a route 545, we just say it out loud. >> Well, we need some sort of prompt. So we don't >> but you can figure that out.
>> Yes, we can write it into the script and then it's just something maybe Miss Martinez like at 5:45. >> Yeah. >> You know, she says, "Chair, before our next recognition, I'd like to make notice that it is after 5:45 all forms should have been collected and we have this many speakers." Bibbidity bobby.
>> 5:45 time certain. >> Time certain. >> Miss Martinez Young always gets a little point in the script. >> Yep. >> I mean, I already read that in during my What? >> I I just want to make clear in the middle of a recognition, you want me to
interrupt and say >> not a singular recognition. >> I'm taking a picture, we're getting up here and before she says, "Dr. Brewer, you have another recognition or Dr. Brew, you have whatever." Then >> you say, "The chair recognizes Miss Martinez Young." >> So, it's the break most after 5:45.
>> Yeah. Like, >> so the natural break >> that's closest. >> Why Why are we change? >> Why would we change it at all? Because currently we already have at 5:40 the forms are due >> because we are giving anyone in the audience ample time that they now have
to go from 3 minutes to one minute >> to adjust their >> adjust whatever they're planning to say. >> If they've planned a speech for three minutes and 16 people show up. They now have to take that three minute and turn into a one minute. And so in the spirit of being collaborative, you say this is
just your reminder. We have now had this many turned in and so it'll be one minute. Please prepare yourself accordingly. >> She should only do that if she gets >> Oh, absolutely. >> Only if she do that if we have >> Do I not normally read my portion after the recognitions? >> Yes. >> Yes, you do. >> Okay. At that point, then I can inform
them of what time they have. >> Our point is that sometimes we don't get there until 6:10. Sometimes we're doing recognitions for 40 minutes. Well, and and the also the point is that if you're the first speaker, >> you haven't had time to prepare >> from your three minutes you've gotten
prepared down to one minute, you're like scrambling because everybody after you has chance to really change it. So, if we give them enough time, at least five, 10 minutes or so to adjust their thoughts. >> Martinez, young is loving this,
especially if they have data prepared, it really does impact their It's Yeah. So all I'm saying is at the break most after 5 at 5:45 if it's applicable to the break closest to that afterwards
prior to the superintendent saying our next recognition Miss Martinez Young just says uh everyone in the audience as a reminder blah blah blah just to give them a heads up like hey fix your script or not whatever
that's all we're saying >> and what she'd be saying is we have eight guest speakers. Each one will have three minutes. >> No. Well, she we're saying she's only going to do it if it's more than if it's going to require a change. So, what we're saying is she would only because otherwise it's just three minutes. There's no reason to change it. So, if
it's 11 or more, then she would just say this is a reminder that the P because due to the amount of public speakers, the amount speaking is now two minutes. >> With the forms we put out front, could we not just modify the forms so that everyone's informed? We will, but we're just saying in a in an effort to be >> they won't know how many forms have been
turned in unless she says it. >> Right. >> I guess it's it sounds like it's really important to this board while we're making changes to make sure that we're really sensitive towards making sure that people feel comfortable and welcomed coming here and that they are
informed of what's going on and how much time they have and and feel like they're really being included that we're not looking to block. Right. >> Right. you know their their opportunity. We're actually trying to facilitate. >> Yep.
>> So, did we cover all the bases on that? >> We go home. >> So, here here here's what I >> Yeah. >> Here's what we modified. And the option one, we've added 30 minutes. And then in option two, we added public comments for discussion not related to an active
board member. A board agenda item shall be limited to a total of 30 minutes and will be held at the conclusion of the business portion of the meeting. >> Now, is this just for board meetings or is this for work sessions as well? >> Work sessions, all that is permitted is
uh things that are on the work. >> That's what I know. I mean, I know that to be true. I just wanted to make sure that wasn't changing work sessions as well. >> Okay. And then we had some boxes we have to check. So under a I I checked um proposition or matter on which the individual desires to speak. That's
going to be open for one and two options one and two. Uh then under C I added three minutes and the time period may be adjusted by the presiding officer. In that paragraph below I'm going to cut and paste it so that it gives that breakdown.
>> Okay. Um, >> instead of may, can we put will because again this is something that's hard for the board to stick to. >> Yes. >> That's in our policy that this shall this adjustment shall be made. >> There won't be any adjustments.
>> No wiggle room. >> The board shall allocate public time. >> Somebody needs to write this day down. Do you remember on Halloween? >> Time period shall be uh No, there shouldn't be a shall there. the time period
>> will be adjusted. >> No, it it may not be adjusted by the presiding officer if it's if if that's correct. >> There are 10 people, it wouldn't be adjusted at all. >> So, the time period shall be adjusted by the presiding officer based on the limits listed below
>> shall be followed. >> What we're trying to say is hold ourselves accountable to say we have to follow. >> I think you need to stick to May. I think you're you're getting overly I think you need to stick to May. The time period may be adjusted by the presiding officer. Um and if you want that to be
with the but it can be as per Sure. You you can put in as per the schedule below and put in the the three minutes, two minutes, one minute breakdown. That that work for you? I think what I think
board thrower and I were certainly trying to accomplish is that we want something to hold her. We want teeth to it and May is not shall >> right. But >> okay. All right. >> I think when you put may in there it opens it back up too. >> Right. >> Then the chair can say yeah but you know
it's books. We love books. Just kidding. >> Time period shall be adjusted by the presiding officer as per the below schedule. And then we're going to need to modify that because they made changes to the it's not 11 to 20. 11 to 15 and then 10 to 30 >> and then did we ever land on another elected official coming to our meeting
and what we do with that because I don't think we we that was one thing we didn't >> elected official or somebody we you know former employee or whatever it is that comes in >> No no no I think we're specifically talking about when Billy Woods has come I can think of that instance for sure
and we he came as a public comment he did not come as an agendaized individual and we allowed him the discretion to talk as long as he Is that the And well I I don't I disagree with that. I think that we should give different >> um
>> we go when we go as >> officials they give us they may give us priority as far to come up and say something but I don't think they give us any extra time. They give you all >> I haven't gotten extra time. >> They don't give me any extra time >> which I never asked for. I just prepared
my statement accordingly. I get courtesy as far as coming up before public comment, but I've never gotten courtesy as far as extra time. >> I I kind of agree with that that we need to just I mean, we can acknowledge them and let them be first, >> right? >> Perhaps if there's an elected official
that wants to speak, but our time is three minutes. >> Okay, we mark this day down in history. I mean, >> well, >> now if it's an agendaized item perhaps that we are seeking in input back and forth,
>> but then to me that's not >> that's not in a board meeting. Hopefully that's happening in a work session >> and they're already on the agenda. >> Yeah. >> Do a presentation, right? >> Well, if the item was in discussion, let's just call it SRO's. The contract was in the in the discussion part of the
agenda. Typically staff or someone who Dr. Brewer would feel like needed to give us insight would speak and there's no time limit on that portion of speak. >> So if it was an agenda item that the person was there to give meat and
potatoes to, they should give that in the discussion portion of the discussion item >> would need to be under discussion then at least >> correct like it wouldn't be appropriate for them to talk during public comment. They should talk as an expert related to the item when we get there in the board agenda, not necessarily in public
comment. >> Correct. >> And then they would have more time to talk. That wouldn't be limited. >> Correct. >> It would be under like a presentation, >> right? They'd be part of the presentation. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> If it pleases the chair. >> Is that how they would say? >> And we usually would only use our own
staff to provide >> But there have been times when people get a little frisky and they just show up. And so that's what we're trying to work through is like being respectful to other constitutional officers. >> Well, and some of it does come down to the purview of the chair because it it does depending on the item, depending on
the scenario, depending on who's in the room, what lots I mean. So give the chair that autonomy and authority to say we're just keep using Billy Woods. I'm going to use George Albbright. Um tax collector George Albbright, would you please come forward and give us a little bit more insight on this just so we're
clear? And I mean that's up to the chair's perview. However you want to handle that at that point, >> but that's within the agenda, not in the public comment. >> Correct. >> Well, we did it. We did it. >> We would just has not happened very many times. I feel like leaving it open like that is is what
>> are we just >> I was just bringing it back up because it came up earlier. >> Clarity for clarity sake. >> Are we going to do it just for currently elected constitutional officers? The reason I say that because I know we did something different when Mr. James came,
we gave him some time and it kind of it kind of created some stuff. So, we need to be clear on how we're going to do it. Jeremy know what I'm talking about. Um, so we need to be clear on how we're dealing with this just currently elected
constitutional officers. Is it retired folk? How are we doing it >> moving forward? It's constitutional officers only. Is >> I was ready to cut the time off. I don't know what you >> Dary know what I'm talking about. You know what I'm talking about. remember >> it. It got ugly. Not and because he was
doing the right thing. He was doing the right thing and he did the right thing but sometimes doing the right thing. >> People have to be reminded of >> correct. >> Okay. I have a couple more blanks that we need to fill out. >> I close my book.
>> Um E, I've checked the box that says the total allotted time for public input will be prrated evenly among the individuals who have completed a public input form. Uh, no. I don't think it's necessary. >> Are we deleting that whole E? >> Yeah, because we're we're what we're
saying basically is we already have a designated pration. >> Right. Right. >> Okay. And then going down below, we have the presiding officer may. And this has to do with your ability for disruptions. >> So, do you want all of those two and
three to be checked? Um, you can stop, interrupt, or warn an individual when a statement is not related to the proposition before the board. Well, most certainly that one would be for the beginning of the meeting. Yes. So, like if someone house somehow wrote on their form, I'm going to talk about
agenda item one, two, three, and then they start talking about something else. We need to say, sorry, this is agenda items, you'll have to save your comments for the end of the meeting. Right. >> Right. >> And then stop, interrupt, or warn an individual when the individual shouts, uses profanity.
>> Okay. >> Yep. and and I think that a decision needs to be made if if it's the chair that's going to take the lead on that or the parliamentarian. Um but it but it's got to be addressed and and again, you know, you'll see when you do it, you can't just summarily try to eject
somebody. They they need to be politely warned, correct? >> You know, have a couple opportunities to get it together and then if it's goes completely down the drain, then then I'm sure safe schools will get involved. I note that um under E1
uh it says you know where an individual when a statement is repetitive and/or a true threat um is too lengthy, personally directed, abusive, obscene or irrelevant. That's the language that was stricken because judgment calls there can be difficult. However, the entire
next statement statement goes on to I think properly define what an obscene statement is what uh vulgar, abusive, offensive, pornographic or indecent is, but we've just sort of excluded those
above. I would ask the board to uh grant me the ability to find those definitions based on Niola's recommendation and the specific Mothers Moms of for
Liberty case and insert the proper language for E one, two, and three that fits those. That will prevent you from having to deal with that more today and with specific you know, with a specific instruction
that I'm going to do a specific thing based on those specific sources. I believe that's acceptable. >> Does that work for you? >> Good. >> Okay. I will save the stuff that we've done and
then I just have this. So the policies reviewed today will be scheduled for rule making on the next available agenda for a final hearing 28 days later and or assumed thereafter because of the meeting timing. Um some
policies that will be on the next work session that we set for policies will be uh 0125 board adopted plans 0147.1 travel and expenses 0169.1
um actually we just finished that so that won't come back. 5410.01 01 promotion, acceleration, placement and retention. 5460 graduation requirements 6550 travel and expenses 8710 insurance risk management and claim
settlement. Those will be the policies that we bring at a next meeting. >> Send us an email with that information. Please >> anything else, Miss Brown or Tony Powers? Uh, Mr. Blackman or Mr.
>> Right. Anything else that you'd want to add into our mix here because you had a lot to do with this. So, thank you very much. >> Absolutely. No, nothing else to add. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Um, >> no, I just wanted to compliment the board. Thanks very much. Um, there are a
lot of people that put a lot of work into this and, uh, many of them are sitting right here right now and I greatly appreciate all that help. And um uh I wanted to also thank you for managing to slog through all of this in
such a timely manner by diligently working through it. It's a it was one where I I always panic and try to set two or three days to get this done because I never can tell. >> But uh >> we're unpredictable, aren't we? >> But very good time management and thank you so much.
>> Thank you. And with that, is there any public comment? Okay, seeing none, we have just a few meeting reminders. Uh, an administrative briefing and work session is scheduled for November 6th at 9:00 a.m. There's a school board
organizational meeting that is scheduled November 11th at 5:00 p.m. and will be followed by a board of directors meeting and a regular school board meeting at 5:30 p.m. Um, and with that, we'll go into board comments.
Miss Martinez Young. >> Um, for our next followup, do we have a date set for that when we're bringing No. Okay. Just want to make sure I was >> That's all I have. Just >> Yes, Dr. B. >> Well, one, I wanted um just to say thank you to Mr. Blackman. He has worked with
all of the staff members on these procedures and so I appreciate the time that he has spent on that. Um, I also just want to bring something up to you all so you could just be thinking about it. we have on, as you know, Shellyley, Riley, and Elena have worked um really
hard on getting the dates prepared for the for the or organizational meeting, the work sessions, the board meetings, the cabinet dates, all of those. Something that has come up is February 10th is a Tuesday, the night before the
Marian days in Tallahassee. And so there's a dinner that most of us probably would like to attend. um in Tallahassee on Tuesday night. We have that is a date that we were proposing to submit to the state as a board meeting
night. So, we don't have to answer it now, but at our next board meeting, we I need to um just have that finalized to either cancel that meeting. Um that would only give us one meeting in February, but we do have two in March. So, it's just something or we can
rearrange that date. So, that's all I have for you. Just wanted you to start thinking about that. >> All right. Thank you, Dr. Ber. All right. Attorney Powers. >> Uh, yes, ma'am. At the request of the board, um, you requested that I prepare a resolution of the school board of
Marian County opposing the railroad shredding tie shredding operation in Denellan. Um, I researched as I indicated that I would. I prepared it. I have provided a copy to each of you. um that copy in order to properly comply
with the uh with how resolutions to be done needs to be placed on an agenda. I will be placing it on the next agenda. Uh however, I have also included section seven which indicates this resolution shall become effective upon signing placed on the school board's next
agenda. That way in order to avoid a timing error or timing problem given the fact this needs to be provided rapidly having each of you had the opportunity to be able to review it um I am going to circulate this copy for each board member to sign and then we'll provide it
so that it can be seen by the county commission and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. So I will circulate this blue folder if each of you will sign it and I'll place it on the next agenda. So, it's self-executing upon signature, but then they will go through uh having it listed as an agenda
item so it's appropriately uploaded to board docs. >> Okay. Right. Miss Brown, did you have anything you want to share? >> I don't. >> Attorney Blackman. >> No. >> Okay. Just double checking. All right. Dr. James.
>> Uh, no. Nothing further. >> Miss Thrower. Uh, not today. Thank you, >> Dr. Campbell. Quick thanks because we are heading to Tallahass. Um, thank you Dr. Brew for bringing that up. I'm the one that mentioned to her about the
February 10th date, February 11th. I do think it's important that Marian County Public Schools has a significant presence in Marian County Day as we continue to have stronger relationships with our other um governmental entities.
So I historically have gone to Marian County Day. I certainly would love to be accompanied by as many of you as want to be there as well. And so the dinner the evening before is really where we are able to share and sit down with our legislators for an extended period of
time and it it's it's been a really well um done event through the years. So just think on that how you want to do that. Um Jessica Janice Sewit sent us the updated schedule um last night. She also has just sent you all uh potential gifted legislative language that we've
been working on and so we are sending that to Representative Chamberlain at his request as well as potentially Senator Mlan uh because we would love to be able to get that into bill drafting. And so that'll be a part of what we'll talk about next week as well as
kindergarten uh language if you want that to be sent to you as well. what I was drafting. I don't know that it's going to land, but I can send that to you. Um, and then I have all of our things for next week. So, I think that's it for now. Yep. Okay. Super fast. Okay.
Real quick, um, I want to say at the beginning of the week, we had a ribbon cutting for a new rock at Westport High School. So, that was really exciting and positive. So, um looking forward a beautiful, um room that is set up there, um to help our students get what they
need during the school day. Um Wednesday, we had uh prayer at the flag pole, um which was very meaningful and positive. So many times we only hear about the things that are going wrong. Really was beautiful um to see children um or young adults, I should say, or not
really children, but young adults um playing instruments, singing uh and and leading worship before school started. Um, so I just wanted to share that. Yesterday we participated in the MTC ribbon cubbing for the aviation program which was a wonderful event even though
it was a little chilly. Um, it it was very exciting. So um, thankful to be a part of that and excited for the things that are happening in Marian County for our students. Um, and lastly, there was a little bit of confusion. I um received a couple of phone calls about uh board
comments at our last meeting and so reached out um to Andrea Msina. So I just want to read this briefly. Your local school board members are the ones to decide who they want to serve as chair. They do not have to be members of
FSBA. So that's just a decision um for for our board members who's going to be chair and who's going to be vice chair. So I just wanted to clarify that so there was not any confusion and if there are no if there's no f further business
we will adjourn at 2:44. Thank you.