Updates on the Fight for Quality Public Education in Brevard County, FL
0:00 [BLANK_AUDIO]
0:30 [MUSIC]
1:30 [BLANK_AUDIO]
2:00 [MUSIC]
3:25 [BLANK_AUDIO]
3:38 [MUSIC]
12:39 All right. I’m going to provide the executive summary and
12:44 Valerie is going to answer all the questions. All right.
12:47 Policy 5517, anti-harassment compliance officers compliant and
12:50 investigative procedures.
12:53 This policy is being revised to conform to the latest NOLA
12:55 template.
12:57 This provision cross-references and incorporates updates related
13:01 to the 2020 Title IX federal regulations as reflected in the new
13:07 policy 2266, non-discrimination on the basis of sex and
13:10 education programs and activities.
13:13 Compliance officer information and record retention provisions
13:15 have been updated along with other miscellaneous updates
13:17 suggested by NOLA.
13:20 These proposed revisions encompass the suggested language from NOLA.
13:24 Any board members have comments, questions, suggestions on
13:26 policy 5517?
13:29 Ms. Campbell.
13:31 Sorry, I was getting myself together.
13:37 So I just sent a couple of just little corrections. I think
13:43 Valerie’s already got them.
13:46 But there was, is this the one where we needed, there were a few
13:48 that we talked about that the language needs to be consistent.
13:54 Between 5517 and 2260 and there was one other one.
14:04 2266.
14:06 Thank you. 2266 about students being required or being
14:11 encouraged to report.
14:14 I think it’s the other one because I have the same comment.
14:16 Okay. So this is the one where it actually says they’re
14:19 encouraged.
14:21 Yeah.
14:22 So I guess that my question will come around when we get to the
14:24 other policies is that we would leave them all consistently the
14:27 same way.
14:29 So in this one then I think the wording is better on 5517. So I’m
14:33 good.
14:35 Any other comments, questions, suggestions on policy 5517?
14:41 All right. Then we will move along to 5517.01 bullying and/or
14:46 harassment.
14:49 Ms. Moore and Ms. Landano will provide the executive summary.
14:53 This policy has been revised to cross-reference the new policy 2266
14:56 and require that reports of sexual or gender-based harassment
14:59 first be evaluated by Title IX coordinator for applicability of
15:04 the Title IX grievance process.
15:08 After screening, any reports deemed not to fall under the scope
15:10 of Title IX would be addressed through this policy.
15:14 Any reports falling under the Title IX must instead be addressed
15:17 through the grievance process in policy 2266.
15:22 Clarification has been added regarding school days.
15:25 Additionally, an amendment is presented to cross-reference the
15:27 appeals process in policy 2260.01 applicable to bullying and/or
15:31 harassment cases.
15:34 Finally, the training materials references have been updated.
15:39 First amendments did not arise from an updated EOLA template.
15:42 Instead, they were initiated by BPS legal counsel in
15:44 consultation with student services.
15:48 Comments, questions on 5517.01? Got it right there.
16:05 Nothing on this one, Ms. Campbell?
16:08 No, I don’t think so.
16:10 Okay. Then we will move on to policy 2260, non-discrimination
16:14 and access to equal educational opportunity.
16:18 Dr. Beth Fuddy, Deputy Superintendent and Chief Human Resources
16:20 Officer, will present the executive summary.
16:24 The purpose of the proposed replacement policy is to ensure
16:26 compliance with all applicable federal and state laws, Florida
16:29 State Board of Education rules, board policies, administrative
16:31 rules, procedures, and guidelines.
16:35 In addition, the proposed revisions promote transparency and
16:37 accountability.
16:39 The particular areas of revision or replacement include the
16:41 following, complete replacement with EOLA language.
16:45 These proposed revisions encompass the suggested language from EOLA.
16:49 Comments, questions, concerns on policy 2260?
16:53 This is the one. This is the policy that has the language that’s
16:58 different for students.
17:02 So, I think it’s in C.
17:07 You’re on the right.
17:09 Section.
17:12 Sorry, I’m on the wrong page.
17:14 I know I sent you something. Can you remind us of the question?
17:18 You did. Let me just find it real quick.
17:21 C.
17:23 Oh, no, that’s not right. Never mind.
17:25 I think it was 2260.
17:28 Right, but also Ms. Campbell wrote about 2260 with encouraged. I’m
17:32 just doing a word search in it real quick.
17:34 Oh, that’s not in C.
17:38 Yeah, under section 4A is where it talks about the reporting.
17:43 So, currently 2260 says students and board employees are
17:48 required and all other members of the school district community
17:51 and third parties are encouraged to report.
17:55 So, that’s one of those areas Ms. Campbell and I discussed a
17:58 little bit when she was working through these.
18:01 That’s an optional feature, if you will, in the EOLA template
18:03 where you can choose encouraged or required.
18:08 We just went with the default EOLA template, but by all means we
18:09 could and probably should, I agree with that observation, change
18:13 that to encouraged for students.
18:17 Is there any board member opposed to that request obtained on
18:19 the policy?
18:21 Okay, we’ll do that before the next workshop.
18:24 Thank you, ma’am.
18:26 Anything else on 2260?
18:29 All right, the next is going to be policy 2260.01 anti-harassment
18:31 and non-discrimination appeal procedures.
18:35 Dr. Thede and Ms. Moore are going to tag team on this one.
18:41 This policy is being revised at 2260.01.
18:45 This policy is being revised to clarify the procedures regarding
18:48 the process by which a complainant may file an appeal stemming
18:51 from a complaint concerning alleged violations of the Florida
18:55 Educational Equity Act 100.05 as addressed in policy 5517 anti-harassment
19:02 compliance officer’s complaint and investigative procedures.
19:07 The Jeffrey Johnson Stand Up for All Students Act, Florida Statute
19:10 1006.147 as addressed in policy 5517.01 bullying and harassment.
19:17 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans
19:20 with Disabilities Act of 1990 as amended.
19:24 Further, the policy is being revised to cross-reference the new
19:26 policy 2266, non-discrimination on the basis of sex in education
19:30 programs and activities.
19:33 To clarify, the appeals procedure for Title IX cases is
19:36 addressed solely in policy 2266.
19:40 These proposed revisions partially encompass the suggested
19:42 language from the EOLA.
19:45 Comments, questions, suggestions on policy 2260.01?
19:51 I had asked, and I don’t necessarily think it needs to be
19:55 shorter or longer, but I had asked about section B2 in the step
20:01 2 for the appeal.
20:04 It says if the informal discussion does not satisfactorily
20:06 resolve the issue within 30 days, school days after the day of
20:10 the formal discussion, the student and her parent may submit the
20:12 written statement to request a formal appeal.
20:16 Is there a reason for that timeframe?
20:20 So I had looked into this briefly. I appreciate the question
20:24 because actually I had been working through this policy recently
20:27 with a school that was working through a bullying appeal and I
20:29 thought to myself, 30 days seems like kind of a long window.
20:33 And so I am not sure is the answer. What I would have to do is
20:37 get back with our EOLA attorney and really pin them down because
20:40 this is a pretty old policy and Brevard over the years has done
20:43 some real customizing to it.
20:46 And I unfortunately, I don’t have the institutional knowledge to
20:49 know when and where and how did it come to land on 30 days.
20:53 But what I can do in time for the workshop and between now and
20:55 then is try to pinpoint with our attorney, is there any reason
20:58 it needs to be 30 days?
21:01 Because the only thing I can guess is if that could be a
21:03 requirement tied to a section 504 ADA type claim that requires a
21:08 30 day window.
21:11 It’s kind of a specific number and it’s a bigger number than you
21:12 normally would have in an appeal process.
21:16 Well, and you would know the legal side of things more. I was
21:18 trying to think of what scenarios would be in place.
21:23 But at this point, someone has already gone through the informal
21:25 resolution process but is not satisfied.
21:29 So they were given them a whole 30 days to come back. Then if it’s
21:31 beyond the 30 days, then it’s too late or you have to start over.
21:38 Yeah, I would interpret that that if it’s beyond 30 that it’s
21:41 untimely at that point.
21:45 And someone who’s really going through this process with
21:49 seriousness should probably be aware. I don’t know that it ever
21:53 comes up as a problem.
21:55 As a practical matter, Mike, because right now I’m receiving the
21:56 bullying appeals, it tends to be very prompt.
22:00 If a parent or a student, like very exceedingly prompt, if they
22:02 want to appeal, they’re aware of the process because it’s
22:05 outlined in the letter that they receive.
22:09 And if they’re going to appeal, they typically do it straight
22:10 away. So if that helps.
22:15 Ms. Wintergold, did you have a comment on this one?
22:19 Okay, any. Yeah, I saw I read all the comments that went out. So
22:24 I feel like probably the majority of them have been addressed.
22:27 But yeah.
22:29 Okay, anyone else comment question on 2260.01?
22:34 All right, then we are going to move on to policy 2410 school
22:39 health services, Ms. Moore.
22:43 Sure we can. Yeah, let’s go for it. I, you know, it’s probably
22:51 somewhere in here, but yeah, go for it.
22:55 I really don’t want to skip that one. That’s the, that’s the one
22:57 policy that’s caused the chain reaction of changes to all the
22:59 other policies.
23:02 My heart was like skipping a beat. Okay. Thank you for that
23:05 correction.
23:07 Ms. Londano, 2266. Okay, great. This is a new policy.
23:12 We’re seeking to adopt the NOLA template. And let me just read
23:14 from form D you have the purpose of the proposed new policies to
23:18 ensure compliance with all applicable federal and state laws.
23:21 Florida State Board of Education rules board policies,
23:22 administrative rules, procedures and guidelines. In addition,
23:25 the proposed new policy promotes transparency and accountability.
23:30 This new policy is being proposed in light of changes to federal
23:33 law. The Federal Department of Education issued historic and
23:36 sweeping regulations governing the implementation of Title Nine
23:39 with particular emphasis on the specific due process procedures
23:43 that are mandated in cases of sexual harassment that occurs in
23:47 the scope of our education programs and activities.
23:51 The proposed new policy encompasses the suggested language from
23:54 NOLA and the specific definitions presented herein are required
23:58 by the federal regulations located in 34 CFR part 106.
24:03 Thank you, Ms. Londano. Comments, questions on 2266.
24:09 This was the last policy where we needed to get the language
24:21 consistent. So I had written down an F2 in this policy. Oh,
24:25 there’s no F.
24:26 Yeah, F2 is and I’ve already noted that that change. That’s the
24:32 same thing we were just discussing of opting for students to be
24:39 encouraged to report rather than required.
24:45 Okay, so where did it go? It is F2 if you’re on the red line
24:56 draft. So NOLA doesn’t break it down in the same way that our
24:56 policy is broken down. But it’s on page 53 of the PDF.
24:57 Is the F2. The clean copy, the last document in that is the
25:01 easiest way. This was the one that was weird because the clean
25:04 copy and the red line copies weren’t.
25:10 Oh, there it is. Yes. So if we can change that right so the
25:13 students are encouraged.
25:16 And then in H, I already showed this already. In H1 it talks
25:24 about, you know, if the Title IX coordinator is the person that
25:30 someone’s bringing a complaint against that they, the
25:33 complainant should submit their complaint to the superintendent
25:36 who will designate another person.
25:39 In F3 it talks about if the Title IX person is the person, then
25:43 the superintendent will actually, I’m sorry, H1 and F3, then the
25:48 superintendent will actually do it himself.
25:52 So it seems to me unless there’s a legal reason otherwise it
25:55 should be consistent.
25:59 H1 says, and maybe it’s because I was looking at the red line, H1
26:02 says the complainant should submit the superintendent who will
26:06 designate another person to serve in the place.
26:10 And then in F3 it says the superintendent will then serve in the
26:12 place of the Title IX coordinator.
26:16 Okay, that’s a good catch. I would recommend making them
26:18 consistent with H1 that the superintendent could designate
26:22 another person.
26:25 I mean it’s similar things but it’s just listed differently.
26:31 He could certainly designate himself. That’s always an option.
26:35 If you don’t have anything else to do.
26:37 I’m sure he’s eager to fill that role.
26:39 I think that would afford us more flexibility and there’s no
26:40 reason why we can’t go that route, so yeah.
26:43 And as the Title IX coordinator, please don’t ever put us in
26:44 that situation, right?
26:46 Yeah, I can assure you, do everything possible to avoid that.
26:54 Anything else on 2266?
26:57 Ms. Campbell, if I recall, I think this was the one where you
26:59 had the question on board member knowledge.
27:04 Reasonably should have known.
27:06 Yes, and Ms. Londona answered that question for me in the email
27:10 because this is new, correct?
27:14 So in F5, it specifically talks about that we are considered,
27:19 even if we don’t actually have knowledge, we are considered to
27:24 have actual knowledge of sexual harassment or allegations of
27:26 sexual harassment if one of our employees has knowledge.
27:31 And so that’s why it will be really important to make sure that
27:33 our employees, I mean that’s not something we can opt out of,
27:36 right?
27:38 That’s something that has to be in there because that’s what the
27:38 law says, correct?
27:40 Yeah, that term, actual knowledge, is one that I call a legal
27:43 term of art.
27:45 That phrase is in the regulations and the meaning that it
27:48 carries is that even if, I mean it’s an extensive interpretation.
27:53 I was glad you flagged that because it’s high on my radar, too,
27:55 is we’re going to be rolling out new trainings, is that the
27:58 implication is as broad as you think it might be.
28:03 So a cafeteria worker or a bus driver or any of our staff or
28:05 employees, wherever they are, if they overhear something, see
28:09 something, they have actual knowledge of an incident that could
28:11 meet one of the definitions of sexual harassment under Title IX,
28:15 then the board is imputed with that knowledge.
28:18 And yeah, that could carry legal liability.
28:20 So training is a big deal and my thought on that is, fortunately,
28:22 we have a great new mechanism to get in front of all new
28:25 employees with the live orientations on Friday.
28:30 So my plan would be to add a slide on this and make sure, I mean
28:32 Paul or I personally deliver that training, so I would
28:35 emphatically emphasize to new hires that this is a mandatory
28:40 reporting area, but that is new, yeah.
28:44 Right. So just another thing out there that we really don’t have
28:48 control over except for as good as the training is, you know.
28:54 Right. In the past, would we have been liable anyway, even
28:58 without it being stated in policy?
29:03 Yeah, I think that’s, yeah, I think that’s definitely true.
29:05 Whether it’s in the policy or not, that is federal law and that’s
29:07 the trend that the court cases are going to, if anything, be
29:11 cracking down more and more on that in that direction, so
29:14 training becomes really paramount.
29:18 Right, which is for the good of our students.
29:20 Yes.
29:22 All right, anything else on 2266? Thank you for catching that,
29:25 Ms. Moore, and now we will move on to 2410.
29:30 All right, 2410. The proposed revisions do encompass the
29:33 suggested language from NEOLA. Give you a little bit more
29:35 information and we’ll add that for the next one, is that
29:38 included in those suggested revisions, it revised the minimum
29:43 provisions of the school health services plan and we have
29:46 aligned that with the DOH.
29:49 It added the requirement to consult with a mental health
29:52 professional prior to an involuntary examination of a student as
29:56 well as to notify the mobile response team or MRT.
30:01 It also added the requirement to notify our community about
30:04 water safety and swimming certification courses.
30:09 Questions, comments?
30:12 So I didn’t get a reply back from you yet, Ms. Moore, but I’m
30:15 assuming you’ve got my questions. Did you get my questions about
30:18 the dental program?
30:21 I’m sure it’s there.
30:23 Okay, I didn’t want to throw anything. So you probably have the
30:25 answers, please. I just don’t want to throw anything at you that
30:27 you weren’t aware of.
30:29 Under A, number five, there’s a list of what is to be included
30:35 in the school health services plan and one of the very first
30:41 things is a preventative dental program.
30:46 So I know we have that with our Head Start. So is that because
30:49 we have that in Head Start or is that just…
30:53 There is more to it than just the Head Start program. I will get
30:55 that information and get it to you.
30:58 But we’re not about to start screening kids’ teeth in our
31:00 schools?
31:02 No, it’s something we have always done. There’s nothing new we’re
31:04 adding to this.
31:07 Okay, good deal. And then in B1, so when it talks about
31:12 involuntary examinations of students, my concern with this,
31:17 which we know that’s Baker acting, right?
31:21 We know what that is and if we said Baker Act, people would know
31:24 what that is. But this particular part of the policy comes right
31:27 after we’ve been talking about things that happen in the clinic,
31:30 right?
31:31 Like you get your meds, you get your temperature taken and all
31:32 of a sudden involuntary examinations, which if I’m thinking
31:34 about medical procedures, I’m thinking about a student who just
31:38 is going to have something done to them without the knowledge,
31:40 without their permission or their parent’s knowledge or whatever.
31:43 And oh, and by the way, we’re going to bring in law enforcement.
31:44 So I’m just imagining what people might…
31:48 Misinterpretation.
31:49 So I don’t want there to be any room. So is there a way we can
31:52 kind of clarify what that is so people understand this is a
31:56 mental health?
31:59 I don’t know how you want to word it, but I just, when I first
32:01 read that after looking through all the normal clinic type
32:05 procedures, I thought, oh, that would be scary for someone who
32:08 didn’t know what that meant.
32:11 If there’s common understanding of the term Baker Act, we can
32:13 certainly put that in parentheses if you guys agree. It
32:16 certainly clarifies what it is because you’re right. It is not
32:19 just a random evaluation or examination of a child by a clinic.
32:24 Right. And in today’s atmosphere, it would probably be good to
32:28 be really clear what that means.
32:31 Or would it be more appropriate, do you think, to say for an
32:32 involuntary mental health examination?
32:36 I don’t know that they’re ever going to call the Baker Act
32:38 anything other than a Baker Act, but if they did decide that
32:41 tomorrow it’s going to be the Cookie Act instead of the Baker
32:43 Act, then we have a policy change we have to do.
32:47 Yeah.
32:49 It probably would be good to put it right at the top on B, like
32:53 right at the heading of what this section is, involuntary
32:57 examinations, so people just understand that we’re not talking
33:02 about, you know, lice and band-aids. I mean, we’re talking about
33:06 something more serious.
33:09 So we’re looking at B, involuntary mental health examinations of
33:11 students. Are we good with that?
33:14 Yeah. Is that good with legal?
33:19 It works for her.
33:21 Thank you.
33:24 All right.
33:26 I do want to say one thing before we move on, just so that
33:27 everybody knows. There’s a lot of policies here, and it would be
33:30 remiss not to acknowledge the work of our directors and our
33:34 assistant directors. I know Chris Reed is here, Justin’s here.
33:38 I know behind the scenes a lot of our assistant directors and
33:39 directors work on these. And so while we represent them, they’ve
33:42 done a lot of the hard work. So I just wanted to say thank you
33:45 to them because it’s a lot.
33:48 Yes. Thank you to all of you because it was a lot just for
33:52 review. So I can’t imagine the process of trying to make sure
33:56 that all the I’s are dotted and T’s are crossed and all that. So
34:00 we certainly appreciate that work.
34:03 Anything, anybody have anything else on 2410? No? Okay. Then we
34:10 are moving on to 2431.03. Ms. Moore again.
34:17 Yeah, this is a new policy for concussions and head injuries.
34:21 This policy is being added to clarify the procedures regarding
34:23 participation in interscholastic athletics and other changes in
34:26 compliance with FHSAA policies and procedures.
34:30 We’re pretty used to saying we’re doing this because FHSAA said
34:32 so. I think this just adds a little bit more power to that by
34:37 saying and it is a district board policy.
34:44 Anyone have any comments, questions on 2431.03?
34:51 Letter C talks about the CPR and the defibrillators. I’m just
34:56 wondering if, like if I were going to search through our
35:02 policies, of course I guess it would come up if you said
35:04 something about that, but the policy is titled concussion and
35:07 head injuries and all other things.
35:13 Should we? There are other policies that talk about the AED and
35:21 CPR, so it gets a little redundant.
35:26 Okay. Do we have that? Because this specific, I know this is FHSAA
35:29 required that you have to have someone present at every athletic
35:33 activity during the school year. Is that part in another policy?
35:40 That’s a good question. I know that based on this, based on
35:43 actually statute that came out in June, we let it be known this
35:46 has to happen, so our schools are already practicing that.
35:51 I’d have to go back and cross reference that to make sure, but
35:53 we did start implementing that based on statute this school year.
35:59 So if you read the statutes, it refers back to 2431.01. What it
36:05 does is it refers to allowing the superintendent to come up with
36:11 policies and procedures in relation to the upcoming laws and
36:15 requirements.
36:18 Because they change so much, it gives the opportunity for the
36:20 superintendent to do that. So inside of that, which is something
36:23 we’re talking about in the AEDs later, I was going to talk to
36:26 the systems and checks and places and stuff like you said.
36:30 So I just wanted to help everybody that it’s inside the next
36:32 couple that we have, and it refers back to his policies and
36:35 procedures, just to help you out.
36:39 Thank you. All right. Nothing else on 2431.03. Then we are
36:50 moving along to 2800 educational services for students in
36:51 Department of Juvenile Justice educational programs. Ms. Moore?
36:55 This policy is new and it encompasses the proposed revisions
37:05 from the suggested language of NEOLA.
37:12 the NEOLA sent out suggested language
37:04 to a policy we hadn’t adopted yet.
37:07 So we put it in place.
37:10 Everything that was within the policy we were already doing.
37:13 So it’s just a matter of encoding that this is what,
37:16 this is what the NEOLA suggests.
37:21 - Comments, questions, or concerns on policy 2800.
37:26 Okay.
37:27 Next then Dr. Thadde will present the executive summary
37:30 for policy 3121 conditions for employment
37:33 and re-employment of staff.
37:35 - This policy is being revised
37:37 for technical and content changes.
37:38 Particular areas of revision include the following,
37:41 the addition of paragraphs three and four,
37:43 which are really C and D with suggested NEOLA language.
37:46 And these proposed revisions encompass
37:48 the suggested language from NEOLA.
37:51 - Any questions or comments on policy 3121 conditions
37:55 for employment?
37:58 Okay, then we will move on to 3121.01, Dr. Thadde.
38:05 - This policy is criminal background
38:06 and employment history checks.
38:08 This policy is being revised for technical changes.
38:11 Particular areas of revision include the following,
38:13 the addition of suggested NEOLA language
38:15 and the inclusion of all staff support and instructional.
38:18 These proposed revisions encompass
38:20 the suggested language from NEOLA.
38:23 - Questions, comments, or concerns on 3121.01.
38:29 All right, hearing none, we will move on to policy 3215,
38:33 smoking and tobacco-free environment, Ms. Moore.
38:38 - This policy, the proposed revisions encompasses
38:41 the suggested languages of NEOLA.
38:44 As you guys know, we just did 3215.
38:46 We did major revisions.
38:47 Most of the revisions this time are based
38:49 on slight changes to the definition,
38:52 as well as some language about violation of this policy
38:56 for administrators and staff and for any persons
38:59 allowed to accept or solicit contributions
39:02 or to promote tobacco products on school property.
39:07 - Any comments, questions, or concerns on policy 3215?
39:11 Ms. McDougall, I think you had questions on that, but.
39:17 - One of the questions I had is,
39:18 I know that we lease and rent out our buildings,
39:22 so I just wanna make sure that certainly pertains
39:24 to them too, and I didn’t see that in here,
39:27 but I don’t know if that’s in another contract
39:29 or someplace else.
39:31 - Yeah, it does pertain to them,
39:32 and the way that they would handle if they wanted the venue
39:35 to allow their participants to smoke
39:37 is they would have to apply for a waiver to the board.
39:41 - So it would come before us then?
39:42 - It would come before you.
39:43 It’s part of the facilities use agreement,
39:46 and then they’d have to come to you for a waiver.
39:48 - Thank you.
39:51 It might have been something else, but I can’t remember.
39:53 - There was another question about adding matches
39:56 alongside a lighter as prohibited.
40:01 - I don’t know if that’s a big deal or not,
40:03 but it’s fire, so hey.
40:06 I mean, I just don’t know.
40:09 I just don’t know if that would be,
40:11 this may seem silly, but our students are very bright,
40:14 and people are very bright for loopholes,
40:17 and do I worry about that or not?
40:19 So it’s whatever you think, so.
40:22 - I think it’s a good addition.
40:24 There’s no reason for anybody to have matches
40:26 or a lighter on campus unless it’s part
40:28 of an instructional lesson.
40:30 - Chemistry.
40:32 - Okay.
40:33 - Everybody good with that recommended change?
40:36 All right, then we are going to move along
40:41 to policy 3590 personnel file.
40:43 Dr. Thede.
40:44 - This policy is being revised for technical changes.
40:47 Particular areas of revision include
40:49 the addition of suggested NOLA language
40:51 and something I need to update on here,
40:52 the addition of some statutory language.
40:55 Provosed revisions encompass the suggested language
40:57 from NOLA.
40:59 - Anyone have comments or questions
41:01 on 3590 personnel file?
41:03 Ms. McDougall, I think you submitted a couple
41:05 of questions on there, but I don’t recall
41:07 that there were any changes.
41:09 - I don’t think there were changes.
41:11 There was just clarification that Dr. Thede
41:13 and I talked about, about if something happened
41:19 out of Southside School.
41:21 - If an arrest would appear in the personnel file
41:23 and my explanation or my answer to the board
41:26 was the arrest wouldn’t necessarily appear
41:28 in a personnel file, but the investigative file
41:32 would contain that information.
41:33 And if the employee, the other piece you asked about
41:36 was if the employee resigned or was terminated
41:38 during the pendency of that investigation,
41:42 would that be in the file?
41:43 And the answer to that is yes.
41:44 And that’s actually the new statutory language.
41:46 And it specifically states the resignation
41:48 or termination of an employee
41:49 before an investigation of alleged misconduct
41:52 by the employee that affects the health, safety
41:54 and welfare of a student is concluded
41:57 must be clearly indicated in an employee’s personnel file.
42:01 - Thank you.
42:03 Anything else on 3590 personnel file?
42:09 All right, then we will move along to the revisions
42:12 to policy 5,500 student conduct.
42:15 Ms. Moore.
42:16 - This proposed revision does encompass
42:17 the suggested language from NOLA.
42:19 This revision specifically includes new language
42:21 from state statute 985985.12 regarding civil citations.
42:29 - Questions, comments or concerns
42:30 on policy 5,500 student conduct.
42:34 - We just changed this, right?
42:35 - Yeah.
42:39 - We worked with district security to make sure
42:42 that we were in line with how law enforcement officers,
42:46 how they make decisions around civil citations.
42:50 The actual statute says we will encourage
42:53 our law enforcement partners to offer civil citations
42:56 when appropriate.
42:57 So that’s basically how we,
42:58 with the help from our district security partners
43:00 phrase the language in here.
43:05 - All right, hearing nothing else on 5,500,
43:07 we will move on to policy 5517.03,
43:11 dating violence and abuse.
43:13 Ms. Moore or Ms. Landono.
43:16 - Minor changes are presented to coordinate
43:18 with the addition of new policy 2266,
43:21 non-discrimination on the basis of sex
43:23 and education programs and activities
43:25 in light of changes to federal law under Title IX.
43:28 The policy has been revised to appropriately
43:30 cross reference policy 2266
43:32 and require that reports of dating violence
43:34 first be evaluated by the Title IX coordinator
43:36 for applicability of the Title IX grievance process.
43:40 After screening, any reports deemed not to fall
43:42 under the scope of the Title IX
43:43 would be addressed through this policy.
43:45 Any reports falling under the scope of Title IX
43:47 must instead be addressed through the grievance process
43:50 set out in policy 2266.
43:53 The proposed amendments did not arise
43:55 from an updated NOLA template.
43:56 Instead, they were initiated by BPS legal counsel
43:58 in consultation with NOLA’s legal counsel.
44:03 - Comments, questions or concerns on 5517.03.
44:07 Ms. McDougall, I think you had questions,
44:09 but I don’t think there were requested changes if I recall.
44:12 - I think legal and I talked about,
44:17 wasn’t there a checklist that we talked about?
44:20 I just wanted to make sure that there wasn’t a time gap
44:23 between going back and forth between Title IX
44:26 and our people who are gonna investigate it.
44:29 So there’s not a gap and we’re going back and forth.
44:33 And I think we talked about a checklist you said.
44:35 - Yes, we did talk about that.
44:37 And then I put that in an email to the board
44:39 on December 8th.
44:40 So you have it for reference there,
44:41 but what we discussed is this will be a new process
44:45 that we’ll develop.
44:46 My plan is to borrow from our friends in Orange County
44:49 who have developed a very handy one page checklist
44:53 so that immediately upon the report of an incident
44:56 of dating violence, that the process would flow directly
45:01 to the Title IX coordinator at the school,
45:03 the deputy coordinator or the district coordinator
45:05 who’s currently myself.
45:06 And very quickly we’d fill out that one page assessment
45:09 to just kind of get it tracked in the right place.
45:11 Does it need to follow 2266 process
45:14 or does it need to follow this 5517.03 process?
45:18 And just as an aside, when I first,
45:21 the reason I initiated this revision as I was looking at it
45:24 and I realized, okay, the new Title IX regs
45:27 cover dating violence.
45:28 And so therefore I felt like this was a duplicate policy
45:32 and I questioned whether it was redundant or confusing
45:35 and could we eliminate it?
45:36 So I had a discussion with our NOLA attorney
45:38 about can we just repeal 5517.03
45:42 in light of the new 2266?
45:44 And the answer was no because there’s a specific
45:46 Florida statute that kind of has a different,
45:48 slightly different definition,
45:50 like a lesser standard definition of dating violence.
45:52 And we have to keep this policy.
45:55 So regrettably, I mean, there’s some confusion there,
45:58 but I hope to very quickly do the training
46:02 and implementation of the identification,
46:04 that early assessment.
46:06 So we didn’t put a timeframe in the policy,
46:08 but, and we certainly could, if you feel that’s important.
46:12 I will add it to the administrative procedures
46:15 as we develop that for Title IX in general,
46:17 that those assessments would be turned around.
46:19 I mean, I think within 48 hours or just immediately.
46:26 - So can I follow up?
46:27 So several of these, or at least this one
46:32 and the one that you were referring to,
46:33 doesn’t it have somewhat to do with like
46:36 where it takes place?
46:37 So this could be something that’s completely separate
46:40 from what happens on a school campus.
46:43 But it’s, again, one of our staff
46:45 becoming similar to Ms. Moore.
46:46 We had this conversation about, you know,
46:48 our families making school aware
46:50 that something’s going on outside
46:51 that we need to be aware of
46:52 because it may affect the students.
46:55 You know, we wanna know what’s going on in our kids’ lives
46:57 when they’re struggling.
47:00 But this kind of policy sets in place what we do
47:02 when we find out that something’s happening
47:04 outside of school.
47:05 Because the other policy really has more to do with
47:07 when it’s going on on our campus.
47:09 Is that, am I understanding that correctly?
47:14 - Yes and no.
47:15 I think both, the main difference in my mind is 551703,
47:20 that’s under state law, 2266 under federal law.
47:23 Both of them are gonna have a jurisdictional component.
47:26 So you’d have to look at that as it comes in.
47:28 If you have like a boyfriend, girlfriend type scenario
47:31 and one of them punches the other in a hallway
47:33 and somebody sees it, an employee,
47:35 that actually would fall under Title IX, surprisingly.
47:38 Even though it wasn’t sexual in nature
47:39 because there was a romantic relationship,
47:42 it actually is Title IX.
47:43 So that’s the importance of the trained Title IX coordinator
47:46 to conduct that assessment.
47:49 But the basic gist of the jurisdictional analysis
47:52 is if it happens on our campus
47:53 or in the scope of our program or activity,
47:55 even on a weekend during a sporting event,
47:58 then it would fall under one or the other of these policies.
48:01 If it happens off campus and it gets reported on campus,
48:04 I still would want to treat it through Title IX
48:06 with supportive measures.
48:08 And the way that you would do a Title IX
48:11 is even if we can’t discipline the activity
48:14 because it didn’t happen on our campus,
48:15 we still would want to reach out and offer counseling
48:17 and supports and document all of that.
48:19 And we would address the so-called downstream effects
48:21 if it’s affecting the student’s ability
48:23 to concentrate in school, for example.
48:26 - Right, okay, thank you.
48:31 All right, anything else on 5517.03?
48:38 Then we will move along to 5610.05, Ms. Moore.
48:42 - This is a new policy for us,
48:44 participation in extracurricular activities.
48:46 This policy is being adopted to clarify the procedures
48:49 regarding participation in extracurricular activities
48:51 and other changes in compliance with applicable Florida law.
48:55 This makes consistent how our students
49:01 and athletes participate in events when being disciplined
49:05 or when having other instances.
49:08 It’s no longer school by school.
49:10 This is board policy.
49:12 - Comments, questions, or concerns on this one?
49:16 - So is the athletic code of conduct is something
49:19 that some schools had and some schools didn’t?
49:22 Is that correct? - That’s correct.
49:23 - Okay, we didn’t have a district wide.
49:26 We do not. - 5610.05,
49:28 extracurricular.
49:31 - Am I good to go? - I’m done.
49:33 - So one of the issues that,
49:35 this is great opportunity and everything else,
49:37 there’s two things that happen here.
49:41 Section two of, subsection two of section B
49:45 says to refer to 2431.01,
49:49 participation by transfer students policy
49:52 for if the person’s allowed to participate, right?
49:57 That gives the, solely that policy talks specifically
50:04 to giving the superintendent the opportunity
50:06 to draw those things.
50:07 Doesn’t say what those criteria are.
50:10 It just says that the superintendent can make those things.
50:14 So what I would like to do is whatever those are,
50:17 be able to publish for our families so that they understand.
50:20 Because one of the issues that we have
50:21 is that homeschool families
50:23 and families that are outside of the scope
50:25 like to participate in our sports, right?
50:27 When they do that, one of the issues they have
50:29 is they’re not sure what those rules and regulations are.
50:32 It’s a barrier that’s existed that’s gotten better,
50:35 but in recent years, it might come up again.
50:37 So the one thing there that I would mention is Dr. Mullins,
50:40 if there’s a way for us to publish part of that
50:43 so that they understand it or a way,
50:46 ‘cause when they’re looking inside the policy,
50:47 they’re not gonna see it, right?
50:48 That’s something we can work on in the future.
50:50 It’s not something we need to do now.
50:52 - Yes, yeah, we’ll take care of that.
50:53 Okay, and then the other thing is, is that,
50:56 where I really was like, hey, wait a minute,
50:58 we might be doing something here.
51:00 Students prohibited from participating in all or part
51:04 of extracurricular activities are not entitled
51:07 to further notice, hearing, or appeal rights.
51:10 So if you have a student that’s like,
51:11 hey, why am I not able to?
51:13 Is there a trigger or some sort of an email
51:15 as to why they would be?
51:17 Because I know that the ultimate,
51:19 so if a student is prohibited from participating,
51:24 there’s no way, according to this policy,
51:26 that they can then approach somebody with it, right?
51:30 I understand that, but is there a way that,
51:34 is there a trigger for us to find out and to say,
51:36 hey, maybe that’s not fair?
51:38 Because sometimes, I’ve been out in the sporting world,
51:40 coaches, somebody else may skew something
51:42 because they don’t want the kid out there
51:44 and it’s not fair, quite frankly.
51:45 - I think what I’m reading, Mr. Susan,
51:48 is that this is because of a discipline issue,
51:50 that they broke the discipline code of conduct.
51:53 And I think there is an appeal if there’s,
51:56 well, there is because we see them all the time.
52:00 - We see requests for it all the time.
52:02 (laughing)
52:03 - I’m not asking for change in it.
52:06 I’m just asking to work with you, Dr. Mullins,
52:08 on how that works for the families
52:10 so that they would know, that’s all.
52:12 - Yeah, I think interestingly,
52:13 but what we haven’t put out there
52:16 is Dr. Ramjit has been working
52:18 on a athletic director handbook.
52:21 - Beautiful.
52:22 - And within the handbook,
52:23 it’s enshrining all of these things.
52:25 What I’m hearing you say is you’d like some procedures
52:27 around this, hey, guess what?
52:29 This is the rule you broke,
52:30 and now this is one of the other consequences to it.
52:33 So we can add that within the handbook
52:36 or as an administrative procedure,
52:37 but that is what he has been working on.
52:39 - Yeah, and that’s perfect.
52:41 And having that out,
52:41 kind of like the FHSA rule book, something like that.
52:44 And then having that available for families
52:46 to be able to also follow keeps the accountability level
52:49 and transparency at a good level, that’s all.
52:52 - Yeah.
52:52 - Just something I saw, so thank you.
52:54 - Perfect.
52:57 Oh, wait, hang on.
53:03 I was just trying to look up this policy
53:06 that Mr. Susan was talking about in B2,
53:10 and I’m not finding a 2431.01.
53:13 I found it.
53:18 - No, that’s 30.01.
53:23 I’m wondering if it needs to be
53:24 under just 2431 Interscholastic.
53:27 I wonder if that was a NOLA.
53:36 Just make sure we got the right policy there.
53:37 - I will double check that, yeah.
53:38 I’ll review that.
53:39 I hesitated to say,
53:40 I know what we do is follow the FHSA language
53:42 on transfer student participation
53:45 without having it all right there in front of me,
53:46 but we’ll double check it.
53:47 We’ll tighten it up and we’ll get it right, yeah.
53:49 I mean, ‘cause it may be in 2431,
53:50 but we just want to make sure
53:51 that we’ve got that right policy.
53:52 If we need a 2431.01, then there’s a next step.
53:56 - And the other thing is that the reason for it
53:57 is not all schools follow or play in the FHSA rules, so yeah.
54:02 - All right, thank you.
54:03 - Yep.
54:08 - All right, hearing nothing else on that one,
54:10 we’re ready for the executive summary of board policy 5780,
54:14 student rights and parents rights.
54:16 Russ Brun,
54:17 Chief Strategic Communication Officer will be presenting.
54:21 - This policy is being revised
54:22 to bring it up to date with NOLA version
54:25 and to be in compliance with Florida law.
54:27 These proposed revisions do encompass
54:29 the suggested language from NOLA.
54:33 - How did this fall on your plate, Mr. Brun?
54:36 - I was wondering if that was gonna be asked.
54:39 (all laughing)
54:41 - I’ve asked that also.
54:44 I think there’s a lot of inside the policy,
54:47 there are student records, which falls under GCR,
54:50 and there’s also different divisions
54:53 in the district that are impacted.
54:55 And so they played their role
54:57 in getting this policy kind of written.
55:00 And so I’m just kind of wrangling it.
55:03 - All righty, well, thank you for wrangling.
55:07 All right, comments, questions or concerns
55:09 on policy 5780, student rights and parents rights.
55:13 - Yes, ma’am.
55:14 - Ms. Campbell.
55:15 - And actually this might be a Chris Moore question,
55:19 so I’ll let you put it when you do.
55:21 I had brought up E1 and E2,
55:26 when it talks about health issues,
55:28 the way that’s worded, I’m just reading it plain.
55:31 It sounds like the parents are exempt from health exams
55:35 and the parents are exempt from immunizations,
55:37 not the students.
55:43 And I don’t know the word.
55:45 - Yeah, I don’t have it in front of me, I’m sorry.
55:46 - It’s yeah, E1 says the parent of any student
55:51 shall be exempt from the requirement
55:53 of a health examination and then blah, blah, blah.
55:56 And then number two for immunization says
55:58 the parent of any student shall be exempt
56:00 from the school immunization requirements.
56:02 - Got it.
56:03 - We will make sure the language reads
56:05 the parent of any student,
56:07 the parent of any student shall be able
56:09 to exempt their child from the requirement of it.
56:12 We’ll fix that language.
56:13 - There we go.
56:14 Okay, thank you.
56:14 - E1 and E2.
56:15 - Yeah, those are the only two that I saw
56:17 ‘cause everything else was pretty clear
56:19 it was about the student.
56:20 It was just E1 and E2.
56:23 - Thank you.
56:24 - And then in J,
56:32 gotta get there.
56:34 This is a long one.
56:37 In J under the nondiscrimination,
56:39 I noticed that Neola had suggested
56:42 in several of these other policies to take out,
56:45 to change it from transgender status to just gender status.
56:48 I’m not sure why, but I thought if we’re gonna make
56:50 all those changes to the other policies
56:52 that we talked about at the beginning,
56:53 maybe we’ll just be consistent and do it the same here.
56:58 That was, I know it was in 5517,
57:02 but I think I saw it in a couple of different places.
57:04 And again, I didn’t, it was an explanation,
57:07 but I’ll make them look all the same.
57:11 - We’ll look at that.
57:12 - Okay, and then S5,
57:20 we actually don’t have it officially adopted tonight
57:24 ‘cause I think we’re voting on it tonight,
57:26 but this one has to do with parent access
57:28 to instructional materials.
57:30 And in the parentheses, it says see policy 2520,
57:33 selection and adoption of instructional materials.
57:35 But if I remember our policies correctly,
57:36 the one that we’ll be voting on tonight,
57:38 the revision of 2521, or was that a new one?
57:41 It actually, they moved all the,
57:45 or some of the appeal processes to that one.
57:50 So I think we might wanna consider,
57:53 especially after we vote on it,
57:55 either just adding 2521 so people will know where to look
57:59 because one of them had to do with how we go through
58:02 when we do official textbook adoption.
58:04 And then the other one has that in there
58:07 and also has the process for not official textbooks,
58:13 but other instructional materials.
58:15 So once we get it voted on,
58:19 and it’s officially one of our policies,
58:20 assuming everything passes tonight,
58:22 then we wanna include 2521 in that item.
58:25 - We’ll update it after tonight, thank you.
58:26 - Okay, thank you.
58:28 That’s all I have.
58:30 - Thank you, Ms. Campbell.
58:37 Anything else on policy 5780?
58:42 All right, then that is going to take us
58:44 to policy 8330, student records, Ms. Moore.
58:48 - This policy is being revised for technical changes only.
58:51 The proposed revisions encompass suggested language
58:54 from NEOLA.
58:55 The one thing that this policy reinforces
58:59 is that even if a child is being investigated
59:04 by law enforcement or is being reviewed for DCF,
59:08 they don’t lose their student record privacy rights.
59:12 And that is stated very specifically in the new language.
59:19 - Comments or questions on this one?
59:25 Okay, Ms. Campbell, we had conversation previously
59:32 about modifying our language around what is available
59:36 and directory information, did that?
59:39 - We actually just revised this policy in May.
59:42 - Yeah.
59:42 - And the one, there’s several that I was like,
59:45 we just did that one.
59:46 Like something like we really literally just voted on it
59:48 at the last board meeting.
59:50 That if you look down in the directory information section,
59:53 which I’m looking at the red line copy,
59:55 it’s from the packets in page 47.
59:58 We did remove, I believe it was place of birth.
1:00:03 - And an email, there was another one.
1:00:06 I think it was email address.
1:00:08 - So what is left are really things that we need
1:00:12 to put out in one way or another,
1:00:13 whether it’s because of awards programs or recognitions
1:00:20 and things like that, athletics.
1:00:22 So that was the one big one that we did.
1:00:25 We did remove that and we did have that conversation.
1:00:27 So yes, thank you for remembering.
1:00:29 - Just wanted to make sure we were still covered
1:00:32 with your concerns.
1:00:33 - I think one of the important things for us to recognize
1:00:35 about this policy is when DCF comes to do an investigation,
1:00:38 we wanna support them.
1:00:39 I mean, they’re doing critical important safety work,
1:00:42 but we still have to follow FERPA.
1:00:45 And one of the things that we have trained our staff to do
1:00:49 is they can’t respond to a give me here,
1:00:52 fill out this piece of paper for me, or give me these records
1:00:55 but we can respond with information
1:00:57 that’s personally known to us.
1:00:59 So if a DCF worker has questions of a counselor,
1:01:02 a social worker, an assistant principal, a principal,
1:01:05 and are asking questions about what they personally know
1:01:07 about the student and the student’s life situation,
1:01:10 we can answer.
1:01:11 We just can’t respond by either giving records
1:01:14 or looking information up on the records to respond.
1:01:17 And so we have a great relationship with DCF.
1:01:21 They understand what our limitations are
1:01:23 and our folks have been trained to understand
1:01:25 what they’re allowed to give and how they’re allowed to aid
1:01:28 and support an investigation.
1:01:30 - So Ms. Moore, just for clarification on that,
1:01:32 does that mean that if they come to the state,
1:01:36 somehow DCF gets involved with the minor
1:01:38 and they come to the school and they need a home address?
1:01:41 - Yes.
1:01:42 - We cannot give it to them?
1:01:43 - We can, that’s directory information.
1:01:44 - Okay, so as long as it’s included
1:01:46 in that directory information, we can share any of that.
1:01:49 We just couldn’t go into things outside of that scope.
1:01:52 - Correct.
1:01:53 Oftentimes they wanna know whether they have an IEP
1:01:56 or a 504 and their progress in classes
1:01:59 and that’s information we cannot give.
1:02:01 And so I feel like we’ve gotten better.
1:02:08 It used to be that DCF workers would send us a notification
1:02:11 with a bunch of questions and they would ship it off to us
1:02:14 and our people would call us and say,
1:02:15 “I don’t know what to do.”
1:02:16 And our answer is do nothing.
1:02:20 Reach out and say, “I’ll be happy to talk to you
1:02:21 with information that’s personally known to me,”
1:02:23 or supply them only with the directory information
1:02:25 that you’re allowed to supply them with.
1:02:27 And then we always send them the list
1:02:29 of what directory information is.
1:02:31 - Right.
1:02:32 So how does that interact with our threat assessment teams?
1:02:38 Because some of that information does need to be shared
1:02:40 within that venue, correct?
1:02:41 - That is correct.
1:02:42 The threat assessment legal language is very specific.
1:02:46 If there’s a serious substantive threat,
1:02:48 that means all agencies can communicate with one another
1:02:52 about what that threat is.
1:02:53 So when we meet as a team
1:02:55 and we are talking to DCF and law enforcement,
1:02:58 we have the legal standing.
1:02:59 Threat assessment process has already taken place.
1:03:02 We have the legal standing to share that information
1:03:05 because it’s of safety and health concerns.
1:03:07 - Okay, thank you for that clarification.
1:03:12 All right, that is going to move us to Mr. Novelli,
1:03:17 policy 8405, school safety and security
1:03:21 threat assessment teams.
1:03:26 - 8405.
1:03:33 This policy will be based on all the recommendations.
1:03:40 There we go.
1:03:41 To be compliant to the new Florida administrative code,
1:03:45 6A-1.0018, school safety requirements and monitoring,
1:03:50 related to district school safety
1:03:52 specialist responsibilities, threat team responsibilities,
1:03:56 and school environmental safety incident reporting.
1:03:59 These proposed revisions encompass suggested language
1:04:02 from New York.
1:04:04 - Questions, comments, or concerns on policy 8405,
1:04:07 school safety and security threat assessment teams?
1:04:12 Nothing?
1:04:14 - I, the only, the only question I asked is
1:04:17 who was the district safety security person?
1:04:21 And then I found out it was Mr. Novelli.
1:04:23 So he wears like 20 million hats here.
1:04:26 So I wanted to thank him for all that.
1:04:29 - Yes, and what a mountain he has climbed with,
1:04:32 with that role, so.
1:04:33 - Thank you for that, I appreciate that.
1:04:35 But of course, without Major Neal and his support
1:04:37 and his fellow law enforcement agency,
1:04:44 fellows in district security,
1:04:46 as well as all of the municipalities that we have
1:04:48 within our borders,
1:04:51 my responsibility would have no power to get anything done.
1:04:53 So we certainly appreciate Brian and all that they do
1:04:56 from the Brevard Sheriff’s Office.
1:04:58 - Absolutely.
1:05:01 All right, that is going to move us on
1:05:04 to 8407 Safe School Officers.
1:05:09 - All right, 8407 Safe School Officers.
1:05:11 This policy is being revised based on the EOLA recommendations
1:05:14 to be compliant to the new Florida Administrative Code,
1:05:17 6A-1.0018, School Safety Requirements and Monitoring,
1:05:22 related to safe school officer assignments and incidents.
1:05:27 This proposed provision encompasses
1:05:29 suggested language from EOLA.
1:05:32 - Questions, comments, or concerns
1:05:34 on policy 8407 Safe School Officers?
1:05:39 Nope.
1:05:41 - All right, thank you, Mr. Novelli.
1:05:43 - Thank you.
1:05:44 - And thank you, Brian.
1:05:44 We appreciate you as well.
1:05:47 Our last policy for this afternoon
1:05:49 is 8452 Automated External Defibrillators.
1:05:53 Ms. Moore?
1:05:54 - Yeah, the proposed revisions
1:05:55 do encompass the suggested language from EOLA.
1:05:58 It made some very specific asks as far as AED training
1:06:03 and CPR.
1:06:04 We have been working with Jim Powers over in facilities
1:06:07 to make sure that we are setting up procedures.
1:06:11 We actually do have procedures on the book,
1:06:14 but when Andrew and Jim sat down to review them,
1:06:19 it became very clear that we needed to touch them up.
1:06:23 So we’ll have those ready for you
1:06:24 before the next work session.
1:06:29 - Those procedures are to check batteries
1:06:31 at a certain interval.
1:06:32 - That’s correct.
1:06:34 - Make sure staff knows where they are
1:06:37 and have checked some box at the beginning of the year.
1:06:40 - Okay, and then are we trying to educate
1:06:44 any of the students on where the AEDs are?
1:06:47 And I’ll explain why.
1:06:48 There was a couple of instances
1:06:50 since I’ve been on the school board
1:06:51 where a student goes down and the school,
1:06:54 whoever they, there’s one teacher there.
1:06:57 And they say to the student, go get the AED,
1:07:00 it’s in wherever.
1:07:02 So then the student ran across campus
1:07:04 to try to get to the AED.
1:07:06 They’re calling out, here’s the other issue that happens.
1:07:09 AED, we need an AED over here.
1:07:13 What was happening was the other staff members
1:07:16 were hearing, we need an AED.
1:07:18 They thought athletic director.
1:07:20 So there was some communication barrier
1:07:22 and then the student went over there
1:07:23 and couldn’t find where the teacher was telling them to go.
1:07:26 So just, I know you guys are working on that,
1:07:28 but just to make sure that in that scope,
1:07:29 we’re working towards that.
1:07:32 I had some of those taken care of.
1:07:33 And then there’s somebody that’s really passionate
1:07:37 about this that we all know, Mr. Sean Cima.
1:07:40 I would love him to just have a conversation
1:07:42 with what he does with our staff,
1:07:44 just to kind of set direction with what he’s seen out there.
1:07:49 He’s been working all over the state on it,
1:07:51 just as a suggestive thing.
1:07:52 Don’t let, not as a here’s the rules,
1:07:54 just here’s what I’ve seen and this is what might work.
1:07:57 Okay?
1:07:57 - Yeah, can you, do you have contact information?
1:07:59 - Yep, I’ll text it to you right now.
1:08:00 - Perfect, thank you.
1:08:02 - He’s worked with every family
1:08:04 that’s gone through an AED trigger
1:08:05 across the state of Florida.
1:08:06 He’ll know where our pit bulls are.
1:08:08 - Awesome, thank you.
1:08:09 - You just made Sean’s day, by the way.
1:08:11 - Oh, I’m sure.
1:08:12 (laughing)
1:08:14 - All right, hearing no further discussion.
1:08:18 This meeting is now.
1:08:19 - Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
1:08:20 - Whoa, whoa, Ms. Belford, hang on a second.
1:08:25 - Sorry, I thought you were just wrapping up the policy.
1:08:29 So I just wanted to throw this out there.
1:08:31 We have been asked by several members of the community
1:08:34 to revisit our mask policy that we had in place
1:08:37 for last year under current law.
1:08:42 Obviously, we didn’t use it this year
1:08:43 because there’s so many things that would make it,
1:08:45 you know, e-learning and several other things.
1:08:48 So I was gonna ask if we would consider
1:08:52 either to repeal it or to heavily revise it
1:08:56 one way or the other.
1:08:57 My preference would be just to repeal it,
1:08:59 but we need to, there’s a process.
1:09:01 We can’t do that.
1:09:02 There was some, repeal it.
1:09:03 The very next meeting, well, we can’t do that.
1:09:04 There’s a process and even repealing
1:09:05 takes the three meetings.
1:09:07 So Paul’s not here to advise us.
1:09:10 Valerie, you know, if you, what the implications would be
1:09:13 if we just wanna think about it for right now.
1:09:15 So obviously we can’t take any action
1:09:17 except for to make a suggestion to the superintendent.
1:09:20 - What are you asking?
1:09:22 - That, you know, if it so moves the board
1:09:25 that we go ahead and start the repeal process
1:09:27 for that policy.
1:09:29 - I’ll second it.
1:09:30 I’ll support it.
1:09:35 - So I will share with you
1:09:36 that I’ve had some conversation with Paul on the issue
1:09:39 because I got the requests as well on that.
1:09:42 And he, it definitely is on his radar,
1:09:46 but I think he was waiting to see
1:09:47 how some things flushed out
1:09:49 because we’ve got some issues with federal direction
1:09:51 and state direction and conflicts there.
1:09:53 And so it’s definitely in his queue,
1:09:57 but I don’t think he was ready to pull the trigger
1:09:59 on going one direction or another on it.
1:10:02 As you’ve said, it’s a process
1:10:04 and definitely the current policy is not,
1:10:08 it’s, we couldn’t institute it if you wanted to
1:10:11 because of all of the language that’s in that policy.
1:10:15 So I don’t know if you wanna wait until Paul gets back
1:10:18 and have that conversation with him
1:10:20 and see what his recommendation is for going forward.
1:10:23 I didn’t push the issue partly because we have,
1:10:26 over the next two months,
1:10:28 we have enormous amounts of policies
1:10:30 that are coming forward.
1:10:31 But I do know, like I said, that it’s on his radar
1:10:33 and we’ve had some conversations about it
1:10:35 and determining where we need to go going forward.
1:10:38 - Mainly I want to see if there’s already a movement
1:10:42 of the majority of the board
1:10:43 to go ahead and move in a certain direction.
1:10:44 But if there’s not, I mean,
1:10:45 I certainly understand the wisdom of waiting
1:10:47 ‘cause he’s already done his research on that.
1:10:49 And like I said, nothing can be done today, right?
1:10:53 Either way, because of the process that’s required,
1:10:56 which is what I tried to share
1:10:57 with the people who reach out to us,
1:10:59 just like any other process when we repeal a policy
1:11:01 or revise it has to go through the course.
1:11:04 So, all right.
1:11:06 Yes, when he returns, if we can,
1:11:10 I wouldn’t mind having a conversation with him as well
1:11:12 or hearing, all of us hearing together what he has to say.
1:11:16 - So, Ms. Landano, I believe that I have a motion
1:11:19 on the floor and a second on that motion.
1:11:22 So do I need to take a vote on that motion
1:11:24 given the fact that we– - No, we can’t vote
1:11:25 in a work session, can we?
1:11:27 - Right.
1:11:29 - Yeah, I think because it’s the work session,
1:11:31 this is not the workshop, I think it’s okay.
1:11:34 I think you can just more have an informal discussion.
1:11:37 To me, if the three of you, if three of the five of you
1:11:40 were like, yeah, we wanna put this on towards the repeal
1:11:42 and we can put it on the docket,
1:11:44 it doesn’t mean it has to go forward.
1:11:46 But I think the better wisdom is wait for Paul to come back,
1:11:49 have some more conversation if everybody’s good with that.
1:11:51 And I don’t think we need to do anything formal
1:11:53 at this meeting.
1:11:55 - I think there’s also some sort of statutory rules
1:11:57 and processes that if we have a policy that exists
1:12:00 that goes against law,
1:12:02 that it’s almost like we don’t need to remove it.
1:12:05 But if we wanna reshape the policy, then we go.
1:12:08 But just ‘cause like to your point,
1:12:10 like you can’t enact the policy that’s on our books.
1:12:12 So I think Paul will have an answer for that.
1:12:16 - So just clarifying for procedure,
1:12:20 and I don’t need to respond to the fact
1:12:22 that a motion was put on the table, right?
1:12:25 We can just– - It was a suggestion.
1:12:27 It was just– - I think let’s reclassify
1:12:29 that as a suggestion if you’re okay with that, Ms. Campbell.
1:12:31 Is that okay?
1:12:33 - All right, so Ms. Campbell had a suggestion in which–
1:12:37 (laughing)
1:12:37 - I didn’t really make a motion.
1:12:39 - I just meant– - He concurs.
1:12:40 - I concur, whatever, second, right.
1:12:44 - Yeah. - He did follow up
1:12:44 with I support it. (laughing)
1:12:46 - Just making sure that we’re doing everything
1:12:49 procedurally right.
1:12:50 The last thing that any of us needs is Paul to come back
1:12:52 and have a fit ‘cause we did something we shouldn’t have done
1:12:55 or didn’t do something we should have, right?
1:12:57 - I knew you all would try to initiate me
1:12:59 or throw me some sort of curve ball,
1:13:01 but I appreciate getting it out of the way
1:13:02 during the work session and hopefully not later tonight.
1:13:05 - And we totally didn’t do that one on purpose, so.
1:13:08 - And I didn’t expect it to come from you, Ms. Campbell,
1:13:10 so I’ll just say I’m impressed.
1:13:13 - Are you gonna say who you did expect it from?
1:13:15 - No comment. - I’ll plead the fifth
1:13:17 on that. (laughing)
1:13:20 - All right, is there anything else before I say
1:13:23 that there is no further business?
1:13:26 All right, hearing no further business,
1:13:27 this meeting is now adjourned.
1:13:29 (gavel bangs)
1:13:37 (upbeat music)