Updates on the Fight for Quality Public Education in Brevard County, FL
0:00 (upbeat music)
0:30 (upbeat music continues)
7:00 - Good morning.
7:01 The August 29th, 2023 board work session is now in order.
7:04 Roll call, please, Paul.
7:05 - Mr. Season.
7:06 - Here.
7:07 - Ms. Wright.
7:08 - Here.
7:08 - Ms. Campbell.
7:09 - Here.
7:10 - Mr. Trent.
7:11 - Here.
7:12 - Ms. Jenkins.
7:13 - Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
7:18 I pledge allegiance to the flag
7:20 of the United States of America
7:22 and to the Republic for which it stands,
7:25 one nation under God, indivisible,
7:27 with liberty and justice for all.
7:34 All right, before we get started on the first topic,
7:36 which is those policies that we had there,
7:40 I just wanna give everybody the update that I asked Rendell
7:43 because now we’re getting into the staff
7:45 and he had mentioned that he had already been working on it,
7:47 that some of these policies, we should not be entertained.
7:51 Like we shouldn’t be in the middle
7:52 of giving recommendations to them, right?
7:55 So what I did was I asked if we could have staff
7:57 get ahead of us and start reviewing them
7:58 so that the process could go a little bit faster.
8:01 So he had said we were already working on that.
8:03 So thank you, Dr. Rendell, for working there.
8:06 The other thing that I was gonna mention is,
8:09 Paul, do you have an update on our,
8:13 the policies that we already have in place?
8:14 So we did the zeros, the 1000s,
8:16 like where are we at with all of that?
8:17 - The ones are on for today for your first review.
8:20 So they’ll be going through rulemaking following this.
8:23 Then the twos, threes, and fives,
8:26 which we’ve done are being reviewed by staff.
8:29 We had a conversation yesterday.
8:30 We’re gonna meet at the cabinet level
8:33 to try and set up who’s doing what
8:35 so they can get really moving on those.
8:37 - Yeah, and I think to all of our staff,
8:40 we really appreciate you going through this.
8:42 Like I know this is a big pain in the butt,
8:44 but we’re out of compliance for some of these
8:45 and I really appreciate the time
8:46 that you guys are spending to it.
8:47 I know you have a million other things going.
8:49 So thank you.
8:50 Thank you, Dr. Rendell, for keeping them on that.
8:54 The other thing I wanted to do is,
8:55 is everybody okay so we have this work session schedule,
8:59 then we have the 7,000s, then the 8,000s and 9,000s,
9:03 are you guys okay for just meeting
9:05 on every opposite Thursday through September to get it done?
9:09 - Tuesday. - I’m sorry, Tuesday.
9:10 Sorry, does that make sense?
9:12 We’re all okay, I just wanted to make sure
9:13 we’re still on board.
9:16 - So not the fifth, because that’s the week
9:19 we have our school board meeting on Thursday, right?
9:21 Not next Tuesday. - Correct.
9:23 - But the, would it be the 12th?
9:26 - It would be, good question, Ms. Campbell.
9:29 So I would say it would be, yep.
9:31 - The 26th. - The 12th and the 26th.
9:33 So the 12th we would try to get through the 7,000s,
9:36 the 26th we would try to get through the 8,000s.
9:39 - I have the college fair that’s at the north end
9:41 of the county is on the 26th at 9 a.m.
9:45 So as long as– - Go in the afternoon later?
9:47 - Well, there’s two different–
9:48 - There’s morning and evening, I think.
9:50 - Yes, so I would just miss the morning session, I guess.
9:55 But that’s okay, if I need to be here, I’ll be here.
9:58 - And then the third, that’s also my husband’s birthday.
10:01 - Okay, so– - Then our next board meeting
10:04 is the 10th, so we could actually do the third also.
10:07 - I think if you guys are okay with doing
10:09 the 12th, the 19th, and the third?
10:12 - The 19th is the first meeting.
10:13 - I’m sorry, the 12th, the 26th,
10:15 and it wouldn’t be the third, it would be the 10th.
10:18 - It’s the third because the board meeting is on the 10th.
10:21 - Yeah. - Yeah, we can slide it in.
10:23 - ‘Cause that first– - We could do two in a row.
10:24 Okay, if you guys are okay with that,
10:27 kinda from a 30,000-foot view? - Yes.
10:29 - Do we need to just– - Of course,
10:30 we gotta check the– - Forget the 26th
10:31 and just do the third since it’s the week after?
10:33 - No, ‘cause we need that extra, we need that extra.
10:36 - Why are you not connected?
10:37 - I don’t wanna miss an opportunity.
10:39 If we’ve got a Tuesday open, we gotta take it.
10:42 - Yeah, I mean, I’m fine for those days.
10:43 Like I said, the only time that I have
10:45 is the college fair, but again,
10:47 there’s two sessions for that,
10:48 so I can just attend.
10:49 - Maybe we just have the college fair here.
10:50 - No, I don’t think that they will appreciate
10:52 you moving all that around, but that’s okay.
10:55 - We’ll work it out.
10:56 But as long as tentatively those dates we can work to,
10:58 we can try to figure out schedules and stuff like that.
11:00 We do have to check in with Ms. Jenkins
11:02 to make sure that her schedule is accommodating,
11:05 but I think that that’s good, okay.
11:06 So everybody’s okay with that from a 30,000-foot view?
11:08 Thank you, Dr. Rendell, for working through
11:10 those other components.
11:11 Thank you, staff, for dealing with going through
11:13 all of these board policies.
11:15 So that brings us to the agenda.
11:17 First topic is a review of board policies 1001 through 1470.
11:22 Okay, so there’s a couple of ways to do this.
11:25 This is 149 pages, right?
11:28 These are things that we’ve already gone through.
11:30 Do you guys want me to go through each one,
11:32 or do you guys wanna just say, hey, we’re okay?
11:35 We’ve reviewed them, and now we’re ready
11:36 to take it to the next step.
11:39 - I just made a list of the things
11:41 I had a couple questions about.
11:42 It’s not a huge amount,
11:43 so whatever you think is most beneficial.
11:46 I don’t know, Ms. Campbell, did you make the same?
11:48 - I had one, and then I figured out the answer
11:50 for myself this morning, and I’m good, so.
11:52 - Okay, and I– - So you’re okay with that?
11:53 - With the ones that are here.
11:54 The only question I had was, what about policy 1242?
11:58 Because that was one that we talked about,
12:00 and it’s not in this list,
12:01 and it also had a new update this year,
12:02 so I didn’t see that.
12:05 Do you know why?
12:06 Is 1242 coming back to us at a different time?
12:11 - Sorry, give me a minute, it’s like that, yeah.
12:14 - Jean, are you okay?
12:14 - It’s not on our 1,000s.
12:16 - Yeah, I just, I mean, it was just a question, really,
12:19 so on page 38, and staff might be able to answer this,
12:22 under section five, we– - Hang on, hang on.
12:26 Ms. Campbell, you had 1232.
12:28 - Paul’s checking it.
12:29 - Okay, so she’s checking 1242.
12:32 - 12, what was the page number?
12:33 - It was page number 38, and I just,
12:37 this is just a general question that I had.
12:39 So we refer to things as job descriptions multiple times,
12:43 and for some reason, on this specific policy,
12:45 we change it to job specification.
12:48 - Oh, I saw that.
12:49 - And I was wondering what the reason is
12:50 on why we didn’t stay consistent
12:52 with description versus specification.
12:54 I think that, again, this isn’t a major.
12:58 - I think that NEOLA uses specification.
13:03 But I think, but we, I think job description, actually,
13:06 NEOLA’s not always right.
13:09 (laughs)
13:11 We’ve found errors in it before.
13:13 Even spelling and grammatical errors in there before,
13:15 it’s been a while, but what do you think about that, Paul?
13:20 - I’m fine with whatever you guys wanna go with.
13:22 We can make it consistent with job description, if you want.
13:24 - I think it would be smart to keep it consistent.
13:27 - Because it says specification on the next line, so–
13:30 - But then in the evaluation of the superintendent,
13:32 which is 1040, on page 72, it goes to–
13:36 - Some of those job descriptions, though,
13:37 have different sections, like–
13:40 - Good point.
13:40 Job description, overall, is called the job description,
13:43 but there’s specifications, and then there’s requirements,
13:45 and essential functions, and things,
13:47 so that’s why it might be broken down into specifications.
13:50 - Go ahead and take a look at it,
13:51 and see if it needs to be cleaned up and done.
13:52 - But I agree, I feel like if we’re about to,
13:55 when we did our very recent search for a new superintendent,
13:58 that was one of the things we looked at,
13:59 was specifically the job description.
14:02 And then we had the specifications, and all of that.
14:06 So I agree, I think we just need to go back
14:09 to what we had before.
14:10 - Okay.
14:11 - Okay, and then the only other one I had,
14:13 and I just want, I want clarification on this, really,
14:16 from a public standpoint, but page 137,
14:19 item number two, under records and reports,
14:25 this speaks to the fact of withholding certain information
14:28 from a parent, and I would like someone to clarify,
14:35 I guess, the reason why we would do that,
14:37 and is that still legal in today’s day and age,
14:41 where the laws have recently changed?
14:50 Awkward silence.
14:52 - That we’re looking at it.
14:54 - Right, just reading it.
14:57 - I think there’s some cases where DCF type situations,
15:02 where, or investigations, where–
15:06 - That’s exactly what the language is referring to,
15:10 in case it’s a possible abuse situation,
15:15 or anything like that.
15:16 - So, just to cover us, would it be okay
15:18 to revise the policy to make sure
15:20 that it’s very clearly stated, that in cases of DCF,
15:23 or abuse, or things of that nature,
15:25 those would be the only circumstances
15:27 that we would withhold that type of information.
15:31 It’s written so vaguely right now,
15:32 that if you just flip to this policy,
15:34 you’re like, wait a minute, we’re gonna withhold information
15:38 from a parent, regarding services to support mental,
15:43 physical, or emotional well-being of a parent’s minor child.
15:46 So, that’s, it’s very alarming to me.
15:50 So, I think if, I understand the need
15:52 to withhold that information, especially when you’re talking
15:54 about maybe a child comes forward,
15:55 and says that they’re being abused in the home,
15:57 then obviously, an investigation has to get launched,
16:00 and there’s a process there, but I just think
16:02 this policy should be written in a way
16:03 that clearly says that that really is the only time
16:06 that we withhold information in an effort
16:09 to protect the child’s well-being, right?
16:13 - Yeah, Paul, do you have any idea
16:15 how we can wordsmith that?
16:17 - Yeah, I’ll pull the statute,
16:18 and if the board wants to add, like in cases
16:21 of concerns regarding, I think the language is abuse,
16:24 abandonment, and neglect, we can withhold that,
16:27 but I’ll make it mirror the statute.
16:29 - Okay, yeah, that would be good.
16:31 - Thank you.
16:34 - Okay, you feel, you’re good about that?
16:42 - Yes, I’m good, those are the only things I had
16:44 in this section of going through all these policies.
16:47 - Okay, and then mine was just on 1242,
16:50 I don’t know if Paul has a answer yet,
16:53 but that was one that we had,
16:55 they’re potentially some obsolete language,
16:58 and it also refers to, going back to our policy, 1242,
17:04 right, it also refers to school board policy 1220,
17:12 which we don’t have, so it needs to be fixed either way,
17:17 I’m not sure how that happened.
17:19 - Sorry, I’m trying to track with you right now,
17:22 and I’m not–
17:23 - So there’s a professional development policy 1242,
17:28 and when we went through originally,
17:32 I went and checked the minutes,
17:34 I don’t know if I still have them pulled up,
17:37 but we talked about it, and it needs some updates,
17:41 and it was also included in the 2023 package.
17:44 - What page are you on in this, sorry, we’re on the screen.
17:47 - It’s not in the package, that’s what–
17:48 - That’s the whole point is, it didn’t get included.
17:49 - Okay, that’s why I’m like, I don’t know how to see–
17:51 - I know, I know, well, I was going back
17:54 and looking at my notes from the last time,
17:56 making sure those changes were in there,
17:57 and 1242, for some reason, didn’t end up in this package,
18:00 so we just need to make sure that it–
18:02 - Okay.
18:02 - Because it has some, because I think there might be
18:05 some language that’s obsolete, as far as the,
18:10 in the second paragraph, and then also,
18:12 it refers to policy 1220, which we don’t have,
18:15 so we need to, and then, like I said,
18:17 this year, there was some updates,
18:19 listed in the NEOLA update, so we definitely want 1242
18:22 to come back to us, outside of this package is fine,
18:25 but we definitely want it to come back.
18:32 - Okay, that’s all I had.
18:35 - Good?
18:36 - Yep.
18:37 - Everybody good on zero through 1470?
18:40 1001 through 1470?
18:42 - I am.
18:43 - Yep.
18:44 - Okay, with that.
18:45 All right, the next topic is the review
18:46 of board policy 0100 definitions.
18:48 Does anybody have any questions on that one?
18:50 - I did.
18:51 - Okay.
18:52 - Why did we strike the definition of relative?
18:55 We have it in there, and we took it out,
18:57 and I’m not really sure, is that because we’re broadening
18:59 the definition, or?
19:02 - NEOLA didn’t include it.
19:06 The only thing I can think of is how we do our,
19:13 it might relate to how we do our absences,
19:19 or leaves, but that one, NEOLA doesn’t include
19:24 the definition of relative.
19:28 Should it mirror what our,
19:33 I think it should be included, right?
19:35 I mean, to some degree, or?
19:39 - Well, relatives are, all of those, even parent,
19:42 are defined in statutes in multiple places,
19:44 and they’re never consistent.
19:46 So, they probably, NEOLA probably just pulled it
19:50 because you should use whatever you’re looking for.
19:52 So if you’re in the 39 chapter of statutes,
19:55 you might get one definition of relative
19:58 versus the 1001 section of the statutes,
20:01 you’re gonna get another definition.
20:03 So whatever statute you’re applying,
20:05 you have to use the definition that’s in that chapter
20:09 for application of relative.
20:10 - Okay.
20:11 - I’m wondering, in our collective bargaining agreements,
20:15 because we have had that conversation about
20:18 what can be a paid leave versus not paid leave,
20:22 as long as we didn’t say in that,
20:24 ‘cause this says, or whatever’s defined in the contract,
20:27 right, did we put something in the contract
20:30 that says whatever’s defined in policy?
20:33 Brian’s shaking his head no.
20:34 (man speaking off mic)
20:40 Okay.
20:42 - But then we don’t define what close relatives are.
20:45 - But if they’re not relying on this policy,
20:47 then it doesn’t matter.
20:52 - These definitions are designed
20:54 to apply to all of our policies.
20:57 (man speaking off mic)
21:01 - So do we need it?
21:02 - So then we would need it.
21:03 - If you guys want it in there,
21:05 we can stick it back in there.
21:06 I think it just got removed because Neil
21:08 removed it at some point from their definitions.
21:11 - I think if it references it in our contract,
21:14 then we should have the definition of what it is somewhere.
21:17 - And then do you wanna go with what was there,
21:19 or do you wanna use, the question’s gonna become
21:21 what definition of relative do you wanna use?
21:25 (woman speaking off mic)
21:32 - I like the definition that’s there, I don’t.
21:41 - Trying to see what policies it might affect.
21:46 - You wanna make a motion to keep the definition there?
21:48 What do you– - Yeah, I mean, I would say
21:50 I think we need to have the definition there,
21:51 and I think the one that’s there is fine.
21:53 - So you’re saying to keep it there?
21:55 Paul, you had a, are you pulling it up to take a look at it?
22:02 Mr. Trent, are you okay with keeping the definition?
22:04 Okay. - That’s fine.
22:06 - I’m okay too, that’s four of us, Paul.
22:08 There’s no legal hold back, you know what I mean?
22:11 I think that we’re okay.
22:13 - Yeah, we can put it in there.
22:16 And I can check statute and try and make sure it’s–
22:21 - Or can you just add a line in there that says,
22:22 or as defined? - At least somewhat
22:24 consistent with statute.
22:25 - Right. (laughing)
22:27 There’s a lot of policies that have the word relative
22:30 in it, so. - Yeah, so I mean,
22:31 I’ll work on it. - Okay, thank you.
22:33 - Thank you.
22:36 - Okay, we’re okay from there?
22:38 - Sorry, I’m the pain
22:39 about this one. - Did you get the direction
22:40 you needed, Mr. Gibbs? - Yeah.
22:41 - Okay, thank you very much.
22:42 The next one up is the next topic is a review
22:44 of Board Policy 0118, Philosophy of the Board.
22:48 If you look at this, it’s an update from Neola.
22:50 I think we’re in a good place.
22:51 - This is the one that we had to pull ‘cause,
22:53 with the zeros, ‘cause we got the wrong one attached.
22:56 - Yes, yep. - Yep.
22:57 - The needs and desires, they’re both in there now.
23:00 - Right, correct, and I, yeah, we’re good?
23:04 Anybody wish to make any changes on this?
23:06 - Do not. - No?
23:07 - Nope. - Ms. Campbell?
23:08 - Nope. - Okay, moving on.
23:09 The next topic is review of Board Policy 3232,
23:12 Political Activities.
23:13 Looked over that, it seems like it’s pretty straightforward
23:15 as far as mirroring the Neola template.
23:19 Does anybody have any other issues that they would like
23:21 to add to that? - Nope.
23:24 - Nope, I was fine with this one.
23:27 - Mr. Trent, we’re good?
23:29 Okay, next topic is a review of Board Policy 3126,
23:32 Direct Contact Communicable Diseases.
23:36 Is everybody okay with that,
23:37 or do you wanna wish to speak to it?
23:38 - Yes, so this would kinda go hand-in-hand
23:40 with what I had brought up before about the,
23:42 at the last board meeting on direction that was given out.
23:45 So this was a, you know, we’re repealing the COVID, really.
23:50 I mean, that’s really what it is, we can call it.
23:51 - Oh, this is not the COVID policy.
23:53 - Direct Communicable Diseases, is it not?
23:56 - Yeah, this has to do, you know what?
23:58 It’s interesting because when I pulled it up,
23:59 I’m like, why are we repealing this?
24:02 This has to do with, like, HIV and other,
24:07 this predated, because the last time,
24:10 this is a Brevard policy from 2008.
24:13 - Human bite emergencies.
24:14 - There’s more than just HIV.
24:16 - Yeah.
24:17 - Okay, sorry, this is not the policy that I thought it was.
24:19 - So they’re getting rid of it?
24:20 Are we okay with getting rid of it,
24:21 or do you wanna keep it?
24:23 - It’s, hang on.
24:24 So, yeah, and I went back and looked in the minutes,
24:28 and the minutes it said we wanted to rescind it.
24:31 I didn’t go back and watch the video.
24:34 But there’s, it is also a Brevard policy.
24:38 So does that mean there’s not a Neola one?
24:40 - It may be a Neola one as well,
24:41 but it may have been contained somewhere else.
24:43 I can go back and watch and see what the discussion was.
24:46 - Yeah, but if we were thinking
24:48 that this was a COVID policy,
24:49 we never actually had a COVID policy
24:52 outside of the mask policy, I don’t think.
24:54 We didn’t have anything.
24:57 We had some procedures, or some guidelines and stuff,
25:00 but this predates COVID.
25:02 - Yep.
25:03 - And I’m pretty sure that,
25:11 so it’s part of it that the board is also committed
25:12 to assuring the confidential status of individuals
25:14 who may have been diagnosed
25:15 with a blood-borne communicable disease.
25:17 I mean, all those things are still gonna apply.
25:19 So before we pull this and face a lot of backlash,
25:23 potentially, we probably should take another look.
25:28 - Staff should have already looked back
25:29 to see if this was illegal or anything like that,
25:32 and if we can, Paul, if you wanna have staff look it over
25:34 to make sure that some of these that we know
25:36 are pertinent to our school system,
25:37 we can make sure that it’s somewhere else,
25:40 and if not, bring it back, does that make sense?
25:43 - Yeah, and they noted on their form
25:44 that there’s no comparable neolithic policies.
25:50 - With staff not giving a direction on this,
25:53 though, they should–
25:54 - Well, the direction of the board was to repeal them.
25:56 - Right.
25:57 - Right, we have to go back and watch the meeting
25:58 to see why we rescind it.
26:01 - But just for a process perspective,
26:03 when the board makes a decision to go and do something,
26:06 sometimes staff come back and say,
26:07 “Hey, here’s why we have that,” and stuff like that,
26:09 so I haven’t seen anything come back from staff.
26:11 So what I’m saying is that if we can pause,
26:13 give an opportunity for them to look at it
26:16 and bring it back, that would be the best thing.
26:18 - There’s a really long procedure that’s tied to this,
26:21 so I think we need to look at this one
26:23 before we repeal this one 100%.
26:25 - Yep.
26:26 - Yeah, I agree.
26:28 I don’t, without remembering the conversation,
26:31 ‘cause I literally was going through this,
26:32 I was like, “Why are we repealing this?”
26:33 - I thought we were repealing the COVID policies.
26:35 That’s why, that’s the only one I actively remember saying,
26:37 “Hey, we need to get rid of this policy,”
26:39 so I need to go back and look at it, honestly,
26:41 to watch what we were discussing at that time.
26:44 - Just so everybody understands,
26:45 we are, you know, anything that we go ahead
26:48 and bring forward, it still has to come before the board
26:51 for two more meetings, so if it’s–
26:53 - Right. - You know what I mean?
26:54 So, Paul, if there’s good direction on the back end,
26:57 you can just bring it back.
26:58 - Can we bring this one back at the next workshop?
27:00 Is that okay?
27:01 Can we push it down the line?
27:01 That will give us time to go back and–
27:02 - Yeah, if it were rulemaking,
27:04 it would come before you for public hearing next,
27:07 so I should know by then whether we wanna keep it.
27:11 If the staff are saying, “Let’s keep it,”
27:13 I can just pull it off rulemaking,
27:14 and it’d stay in existence.
27:17 - Okay.
27:17 - But I’d say if there’s standards that are required
27:20 that we don’t have spelled out in the same way
27:24 in another policy, we probably need to hang onto it,
27:26 but if, I mean, if we do have it somewhere else,
27:28 then we can repeal it ‘cause maybe it’s redundant,
27:30 which is fine.
27:31 - We can go back and watch the video, too,
27:32 and see what the discussion was on why to repeal it.
27:34 - Yeah, I don’t remember having an in-depth discussion
27:37 about this, but there’s been a lot that’s happened, so.
27:40 - Okay, so we’re good with that direction?
27:42 - So just to clarify, we’re gonna keep it in the queue.
27:47 - It’ll stay on rulemaking until we verify
27:49 why it was being rescinded and if staff wants to keep it.
27:53 - Okay.
27:55 Okay, so the next one up is the political activities.
28:01 The next topic is review of policy 3232 political activities.
28:04 If you guys look at it, it deals–
28:06 - I think it’s 3575.
28:07 - 3575.
28:10 - 3575. - Candidates for public office.
28:11 - Yeah, we did 32, whatever that one was.
28:13 - Okay, hang on just a second.
28:16 Yeah, 3575 candidates for public office.
28:19 This is the one that said that we had to notify the board
28:22 and everybody else if you’re running for political office,
28:24 take the, all candidates for public office
28:27 may take personal leave without pay
28:28 for 30 days prior to the election.
28:32 We had decided that we, that this was not something
28:35 that we wanted to move forward on, but–
28:37 - No, actually, Mr. Susan, we’re repealing this one
28:40 and the next one because 3232 has them all together.
28:43 - Right. - Right.
28:45 - So 3575 and 3580, we’re doing one policy
28:49 for political activities rather than two separate ones.
28:52 - That one’s good.
28:53 So everybody okay with 3575 being repealed?
28:56 - Mm-hmm. - Add it to 3580?
28:58 All right, next topic of review is 3580,
29:02 supporting the public candidates.
29:03 - So this one on here says that
29:05 where we’re sending this one as well.
29:06 - Right, ‘cause all that information is also in 3232.
29:09 - Okay.
29:11 - Give me just a second to get rid of all of these.
29:13 - I know, pinging back and forth.
29:18 - See, there’s only two computers.
29:20 - Yeah, you’re right, I can see the benefits.
29:22 - Okay, so we have now gone through all the first,
29:29 now all we have to do is move on to the 6000s, right?
29:31 - Yep. - Everybody okay with that?
29:32 - Mm-hmm. - All right.
29:33 Let me just take a second here.
29:35 - Can I just ask one question just going back,
29:36 and I know I’m circling back.
29:37 I just wanna make sure, with us having a policy on here
29:41 that is in the status of rescinding and keeping it on there,
29:46 that means it moves to public hearing next.
29:50 - Right, it’s gonna stay in the process
29:51 until the final meeting, it’s a policy on the books,
29:55 even if it’s in the process of being rescinded.
29:58 - Okay, and I’m just thinking to,
30:00 ‘cause there could be some real public outrage
30:03 over rescinding this policy,
30:04 coming forward to speaking about it at the next meeting.
30:06 - We’ll know before to get it pulled off the agenda.
30:09 - Okay, all right. - Which, oh, you mean the–
30:10 - I’m just concerned about that, yeah, I am.
30:12 So that’s why I’m like, is it beneficial
30:14 to just push it down to the next workshop rather than,
30:18 I don’t know, okay, but if you’re saying that we’ll–
30:21 - We’ll check it, yeah. - All right.
30:24 - Okay, so now we’re on to 6000 policies.
30:27 So let me just get set up for this, because we’ve got–
30:30 - It’s not a whole bunch, which–
30:33 - Mrs. Campbell? - Yeah.
30:37 Oh, because Mr. Cheated loves me. (laughs)
30:42 Thank you, see, I got my set up here.
30:46 - All right, we’ll get all of these set up here.
30:49 - Yeah, ‘cause we have the updated–
30:50 - 5000s, yeah, I just gotta get all of this,
30:52 give me just a second. - No worries,
30:54 I’m doing the same thing. - 6000s here,
30:56 those are the, awesome.
31:03 - How many tabs can you open on your computer before?
31:06 It’s like, uh-uh.
31:07 - There’s that, no, okay.
31:14 - Oh, man, now I have to read my handwriting.
31:18 - Uh-oh. - 3000s.
31:21 - I think that word is detailed.
31:22 - All right, so that’s 1000s.
31:26 Sorry, I had so many darn things opened up here, okay.
31:29 So there’s that, I’m gonna go back here to go like this,
31:36 and then 6000s, all right.
31:43 This is where I put these.
31:52 - She does have ‘em attached, both of ‘em to the agenda.
31:54 - Even though, just hang on, I gotta process.
32:03 All right, here we go.
32:05 All right, so now I have the NEOLA templates
32:07 that should have been updated.
32:09 I have our policies, and then I have the ones
32:11 that just came down the pipe from July,
32:13 so we have it all come here.
32:15 So the first one that we have
32:17 is uniform records and accounts.
32:20 - NEOLA’s policy is significantly different than ours.
32:23 - Yep, let’s see here.
32:26 - Unless the, yeah, they have a more recent update,
32:30 and they’re more detailed.
32:35 We had to make a decision on the audits,
32:39 and this one, we have the first option,
32:42 ‘cause we, with an internal auditor,
32:44 or independent CPA firm, so.
32:48 And also, but we also don’t have policy 6830,
32:52 so we would need to make some adjustments,
32:55 unless we’re gonna add 6830.
33:01 That’s at the end, I don’t know if we’re gonna get
33:03 to those today, but we have a,
33:05 our audit policy is like, is different numbers from there,
33:08 and that’s gonna be when we get to end of 6000s,
33:10 but whatever we do for 6830, it needs to line up
33:13 with the correct policy if we change ours.
33:15 - When I looked at the 6100, the one thing I did like
33:18 is the method of accounting had the non-dispersible
33:20 fund balance, restriction of fund balance,
33:22 committed fund balance, assigned fund balance.
33:24 Unassigned fund balance, you know what I mean inside there?
33:27 We do that to a degree, but it’s not in policy here.
33:31 I think it would be nice to add that to policy,
33:34 but I think I’m okay with this policy and EOLA template,
33:39 but I wanna hear from, you know what I mean,
33:40 I wanna say, okay, this looks good from the 30,000 foot view
33:44 but I would like to give it to Ms. Lisinski
33:46 to make any kind of recommendations that she would have back
33:49 if that’s okay.
33:50 - Yep, it needs to be updated.
33:52 - Yeah, so Ms. Lisinski, I don’t wanna get ourselves
33:57 to say we want this and then it go against
33:59 some of the audit policies and stuff like that.
34:01 So I think as we go through these,
34:03 I think the board will say, hey, this looks good
34:05 as a policy, but if you can come back with anything
34:07 that says we can’t do that because of this,
34:10 you know what I mean, there’s this.
34:11 If you can give us that guidance,
34:12 that would be tremendous for us, is that okay?
34:18 - Is our inventory, and this is just a general question,
34:20 I don’t know, and maybe there’s an answer that’s easy,
34:22 but the warehouse stock, the inventory that’s done annually,
34:25 is that published anywhere publicly?
34:29 - I don’t know that it’s published anywhere
34:31 that you can get it easily, but I’m sure it’s attainable.
34:35 - Okay, I was just curious if that’s something
34:37 that’s easily obtained from a voter standpoint, so.
34:41 - There’s a list QR code that everything over $1,000.
34:45 - All right, so if we’re okay with sending,
34:48 6,100 uniform records and accounts to Ms. Lisinski,
34:51 the way that it is currently under the NEOLA template,
34:53 I think we’re in a good place.
34:54 - Using the internal auditor, not the office of auditor.
34:58 - Yes, we don’t want, we would rather our
35:01 internal auditors here. - Well, we would prefer
35:02 our internal auditor. (laughs)
35:03 - Okay, next one up is 6105,
35:07 authorization to use facsimile signatures.
35:12 - NEOLA doesn’t have an update since ours,
35:14 and I think ours is pretty good.
35:17 I have this one checked off as being good.
35:21 - Yep, I’m okay with continuing
35:23 with the current one that we have.
35:25 - So leave current.
35:26 - There’s an update 6105 from the board,
35:33 from this one that’s a little bit different.
35:38 Do you see it?
35:39 - 6105, yeah. - 6105.
35:41 It was NEOLA that updated it in 2013.
35:43 It’s got about two more statutory references,
35:46 and on top of it, it has some of the other checklists.
35:49 - Well, the checklists are things for us to choose from,
35:51 because of who we can, but what I’m saying
35:55 when I say I’m fine with it as it is,
35:56 is who we have chosen from, who can sign,
35:58 whose signature can be on that is fine.
36:00 If you want to send it back
36:01 so we can get extra legal references.
36:05 - No, what I’d like to do is just make sure that,
36:07 yeah, we always wanna add the legal references to it,
36:09 because that’s part of the recommended policy,
36:11 but what I’d like to do is give it back to Ms. Lisinski
36:13 to make any recommendations that you would like to see
36:15 inside there and bring it back to us.
36:17 Does that make sense?
36:18 - Yes, I like the option on here
36:20 where we ask for a hand signature
36:22 on any transaction amount over a certain dollar amount.
36:25 I think that’s good, just as a–
36:29 - I don’t think we have that.
36:30 - We don’t, that’s what I’m saying.
36:31 It’s on the NEOLA template, though,
36:32 where you can select that.
36:33 - The only thing about that is,
36:37 I’m not sure how much we’re actually signing checks.
36:42 I mean, we’re–
36:43 - Ms. Lisinski would probably know that more so.
36:45 - So I’d hate to add something in policy that says,
36:48 where is that part where it says that?
36:50 - It’s towards the bottom of–
36:51 - You have to hand sign a check over a certain amount
36:58 when we’re doing wires and things like that.
37:03 - Or, I mean, even the idea of the multiple signatures
37:05 being required for transactions over a certain dollar amount,
37:08 I think that’s a good safeguard, too,
37:09 just to make sure that there’s a check and balance on.
37:14 - Ms. Cindy, can you shed some light on that for us?
37:18 What’s the biggest check you’ve ever signed?
37:19 Let’s ask that.
37:23 - Biggest check I’ve ever signed?
37:25 My mortgage, maybe.
37:29 - Cindy’s name is not on the list of people
37:31 who can sign checks.
37:34 - I think, Ms. Wright, that may cause some process issues
37:38 because with the handwriting signature,
37:41 we’re trying to move away from all of the
37:44 very, very manual things, but we do have internal controls
37:49 of, you know, there’s three different people
37:51 that have to look at it from different departments,
37:54 but I can give you more specifics on that.
37:56 - Okay, yeah.
37:57 In other words, what are we taking us back to?
38:00 - Yeah, we’re trying to move forward,
38:02 and I think that would also, yeah,
38:07 it would cause some issues
38:09 with just trying to get our payments out
38:11 and working with procurement with the vendors.
38:15 - What about the multiple signatures for certain checks
38:18 and like in excess of $50,000?
38:20 Do we currently have that practice in place?
38:23 - I will have to go back and ask if we do.
38:26 - Okay.
38:27 - Ms. Lisinski, I think what Ms. Wright is getting at is
38:29 is that we had some sort of check and balance, right?
38:32 So like the concern is, but I’m under the understanding
38:37 that anything over the dollar amount,
38:39 I think it’s like 36,000 has to be gone out, go out for bid,
38:43 and anything over, under 50,000,
38:45 like the superintendent has the opportunity to do,
38:47 but we put in place the under $50,000
38:50 to have some sort of board recognition of those.
38:54 I think there’s some other things in place too,
38:57 that if this is a big burden,
38:59 I think that making sure that there’s a check and balance
39:02 coming through the board for those,
39:04 I think anything over a certain amount
39:05 is automatically gonna come in a contract
39:07 to the school board.
39:08 - This is just the payment though.
39:09 And I think probably– - This is the payment.
39:11 - Yeah, I think it would probably be good
39:13 to have a conversation with,
39:15 if you’d like to have a conversation with RSM,
39:19 because they’re doing, and no, actually who’s our–
39:23 - RSM. - RSM.
39:23 But who’s our other one that does like the budget one?
39:27 - Carmen. - MSL.
39:28 - Yeah, yeah, to have those conversations about,
39:31 because they’re checking,
39:32 I mean, if we don’t have those checks,
39:34 what you’re wanting is accountability
39:36 and checks and balances.
39:37 But if we have those,
39:38 it’s industry standard in electronic formats.
39:42 It’s not the old– - Right, right.
39:44 - The standard used to be multiple people signing a check,
39:47 but we’re in the 21st century
39:49 and we’re not doing that that way anymore.
39:51 But it doesn’t mean there aren’t standard,
39:53 the checks and balances.
39:54 So it’d probably be good to have a conversation
39:56 with the auditors.
39:57 And I know Laura Manlove from RSM
39:58 is always open to whatever,
40:01 she will pick up the phone anytime that we need her,
40:03 to just understand that from a current standpoint,
40:07 what is industry standard for?
40:08 What are those checks and balances?
40:10 ‘Cause we know Cindy’s got ‘em.
40:11 - Right, and the AG came recently
40:14 and reviewed all her procedures.
40:16 I just don’t have it on the top of my head
40:19 of exactly how we do that,
40:21 but I know that we’re very vigilant
40:24 in making sure that we are internal controls,
40:27 and I’ll get the process to you.
40:28 - Okay, if you would.
40:29 And then if we don’t have something in place currently,
40:33 excuse me, that calls for multiple signatures,
40:36 and I mean, I understand it could be an electronic signature
40:38 or approval, so to speak, on a deposit.
40:41 That might be a good policy to put in place
40:44 as just, again, another check and balance.
40:45 And they put it here in the NEOLA template,
40:47 so that leads me to believe that this is probably something
40:49 that a lot of school boards are using or doing
40:52 just to make sure.
40:53 Sounds like we’re doing it already anyways.
40:55 - We are. - Yes.
40:56 - Yeah, but I’m just, but not the blue ink.
40:58 We’re trying to get away from the–
40:59 - Right, right, right.
41:00 So I guess when you say, okay, signatures by hand,
41:04 we’ll X&A that one, ‘cause no one’s talking about that.
41:06 - Well, NEOLA’s update is also 10 years old.
41:08 - Yeah.
41:09 - I think about how much the world has changed
41:10 in the last 10 years. - Yeah, the world has changed
41:11 in 10 years.
41:12 But just that multiple people are going through
41:14 the approval process, ‘cause we approved the contract,
41:16 that’s right, so it’s already gone through all the steps
41:17 of procurement, but as far as the payment goes,
41:20 I think it’s probably a good thing to look at
41:23 since we’re doing that.
41:25 - And I think if I can verify that we had agreed
41:29 that the superintendent’s purchases will come on
41:33 some sort of a board agenda item,
41:36 and then also I think we had discussion wrapped around
41:39 contract renewals, so like one of the things
41:41 I was speaking to, and maybe we have to put it on the board
41:44 for more discussion, is that, hang on, hang on, hang on.
41:48 If we have that policy, then it’s a check and balance,
41:50 is what I’m saying.
41:51 So we may not have to get checks that we have to go sign.
41:55 So, but in procurement, I found out that the renewal
41:58 of contracts, so say our pharmacy renewal, right,
42:01 all of a sudden that can be renewed
42:03 without coming before the board.
42:05 Insurance renewal, so after three years,
42:07 those one-in-ones that we have on the back end,
42:09 so I think we had discussion wrapped around
42:11 making that come before the board,
42:12 but if we need to make it part of discussion,
42:14 I’d like to do that.
42:15 But I think we have checks and balances, is what I’m saying,
42:18 to make sure we capture all of those things, that’s all.
42:20 So when you’re doing that,
42:21 just put that into consideration.
42:24 - And looking at the annual review,
42:25 I think that’s what we were talking about,
42:26 that really gives us the ability to lay eyes on it.
42:29 It just helps from a board’s perspective
42:31 to know what’s going on and to make sure
42:32 that we’re laying eyes on any kind of things
42:34 that could potentially go sideways.
42:35 I know that everyone does a great job until they don’t,
42:38 and so if we can check it and we can make sure
42:41 that we’re staying on top of it,
42:42 that helps make sure that we hold our district accountable
42:45 and being responsible.
42:49 - All right, are we good?
42:52 61-05?
42:55 Everybody okay?
42:56 - Yes. - Move.
42:59 You okay, Ms. Zinske?
43:01 You good?
43:02 I didn’t know, I was looking down.
43:04 61-07, sorry, we’re gonna have to give me a second here.
43:08 - So our, your 61-07 is our 61-07 point–
43:11 - Ms. Campbell, just hang on just a second, all right?
43:13 61– - I’m not gonna say anything
43:15 essential. - But I’m introducing,
43:17 I know, but I’m introducing the topic,
43:18 just hang on just a second.
43:20 So if you guys look inside of our topic,
43:22 it’s 61-07.01 Electric Funds Transfers.
43:26 If you look at the two that are on the original,
43:29 or the new NEOLA updates,
43:31 there’s a version one and a version two,
43:32 and then let me make sure that we don’t have a 61,
43:36 there we go.
43:37 So if you look at 61-07, right,
43:42 version one, authorized to accept
43:44 and distribute electronic funds,
43:46 and then the other one, let me see here,
43:52 is…
43:56 - We have version one,
43:58 but it needs some updating. - Yes, Ms. Campbell.
44:00 Thank you.
44:02 So anyways, if you look at version two that’s up there,
44:04 it’s a very short one, it’s not the one that we have.
44:07 If you look at version one, you can see it side by side,
44:11 and you can see that it needs to be updated
44:13 based upon ours, which was 2014,
44:16 NEOLA has a 2020 template.
44:18 So the current version one is new from 2020,
44:22 it needs to be updated.
44:24 If you guys can look through it,
44:25 if you don’t have any issues with it,
44:26 then we can move it on to,
44:30 just the since being staff.
44:32 Did you have anything that you wanted to say about it,
44:34 Ms. Campbell? - No, it needs up
44:35 to be updated. - Yep.
44:38 - Yep. - Yep.
44:39 - We’re good, good, all right.
44:41 So 61-07 version one needs to be the one that we choose,
44:45 Paul, and it is the 2020 NEOLA.
44:49 You just sent the staff, you good?
44:50 - All right, yep. - Okay.
44:52 Next one is
44:56 61-10 grant funds.
44:59 The one that’s, we call it federal funds,
45:01 they call it grant funds, same kind of thing.
45:04 The one that we have inside of our book
45:07 was updated in 2002.
45:09 The one that’s inside there now is a 2022 one,
45:11 and it is very extensive. - Yes.
45:13 - I think that this is one that we would
45:15 like to give the staff to look over, to review,
45:18 to see if they wanna make any recommendations.
45:20 Does anybody have anything?
45:21 I mean, it’s like four more pages.
45:24 So are you okay with that, Ms. Campbell,
45:26 sending this one in? - Yeah, and actually,
45:28 the next several policies, in, not all of them,
45:31 but in the next several policies,
45:32 there are a couple that also have to do with grants.
45:36 So we probably need to take a look
45:38 and see which ones we need.
45:39 I don’t know that we need all of them,
45:40 ‘cause my question now, beside the next five, four,
45:42 is do we need, do we need, do we need, do we need,
45:44 ‘cause I don’t know.
45:47 But yeah, this one definitely is more extensive
45:51 than the one we have.
45:52 - Right, because you have 61-11,
45:54 which is internal controls. - That one’s not so much.
45:57 - But the next one after that has to do with grants.
46:01 All right, so if we were okay with 61-10 going to staff
46:05 to make sure that the new template is okay,
46:07 and then bringing that back, that’s good for us.
46:09 Paul, are you okay with that?
46:10 - Yep. - Okay.
46:11 - So just to clarify, when we say,
46:13 like this one, for example, just run it by staff,
46:17 if we don’t see any problems with it,
46:17 it just stays in the queue and we keep moving.
46:19 - That’s it. - Right.
46:20 - Right, yeah. - If the template’s good,
46:22 then with staff, we’ll just put it on, yeah.
46:24 - Sorry, I’ll try a better job at explaining those.
46:28 All right, so the next one is, we don’t have this policy,
46:30 but it is in the EOLA, which is 61-11 internal controls.
46:34 It goes through about maintaining internal controls
46:37 over federal awards, gives some good direction on,
46:41 you know what I mean, and some suggestions on
46:44 evaluation and monitoring and compliance
46:46 with state statutes and stuff like that.
46:49 If you guys– - So it kinda does
46:50 have to do with grants.
46:51 I take that question before. - I know.
46:52 - This one also has to do with grants.
46:53 - Well, and it also, it kinda bleeds into some other stuff,
46:56 though, I think, but yeah.
46:57 I mean, so if you guys are okay with sending this
47:01 for staff to review, I’m okay with putting it in,
47:04 but they may say, just like Ms. Campbell said,
47:06 look, this might be something that’s already covered
47:07 in something else, but I think that this is something
47:10 that it looks like it would be appropriate.
47:14 - And this one, like some of the other ones,
47:16 ‘cause there’s a lot in 6,000s that we don’t have,
47:19 I don’t wanna add something that we already have covered,
47:21 but if it’s something, and I imagine all these things,
47:24 just ‘cause we don’t have any policy
47:25 doesn’t mean we’re not doing it,
47:27 but if it would be helpful,
47:28 especially to people on the outside looking in,
47:31 that have a clear one place to look
47:34 to put it in policy for staff or from the outside,
47:37 then let’s add ‘em in, but.
47:40 I was looking at 6,000s, man, there’s not very many,
47:42 and then if you look at it in the Ola book,
47:44 there’s a lot, so. - There’s a lot.
47:46 - Yes, that’s what I was thinking on some of this.
47:50 One of the issues that we have
47:51 is that many of our 6,000s were not,
47:53 they’re all from 2002, 2008, 2014,
47:57 so there’s probably gonna run through a lot of these
47:59 that have been created since then
48:01 that we’re probably needing to add to it,
48:03 so I think that having Ms. Lissinski’s staff
48:06 look at each one of ‘em to make sure
48:07 that there’s no conflict of interest
48:09 and if there’s not moving forward,
48:10 ‘cause some of ‘em have statutory legal laws that are there,
48:14 so we may have to have ‘em added,
48:16 so if you’re okay with having that process
48:18 with 6-1-1-2 of sending to Ms. Lissinski for review
48:23 and if there’s no objections to bring it back to us,
48:26 if you’re okay with that? - Yep.
48:28 - Okay.
48:30 6-1-1-4 is the next one that is not in our policies,
48:35 but it is a new NEOLA template.
48:36 It’s cost principles spending federal funds.
48:40 Again, this is another one where I think if we have the,
48:44 it’s pretty lengthy and it’s got a considerable amount
48:47 of federal statutes and laws and stuff attached to it,
48:50 so I would like to make sure that we’re within our scope
48:53 if we can have that sent to Ms. Lissinski
48:55 and have her review it for fidelity
48:58 and then get back to us, that’d be fine.
48:59 Are you okay with that, Ms. Campbell?
49:01 - The next one’s on federal funds as well.
49:03 - Yeah, next one is 6-1-1-6, time and effort reporting.
49:10 Again, it’s got some statutory or federal laws to it.
49:15 I would like to, if it’s okay with you guys,
49:18 push it up to Ms. Lissinski for review,
49:20 and if not, you getting this, Paul?
49:23 - Yep. - Okay.
49:24 - The good news is most of these things
49:25 are already being done, so I know that’s a little alarming
49:27 when you’re like, oh, we don’t have this policy
49:28 or that policy, but you guys are already doing these things
49:31 just by nature of what has to be done
49:32 when it comes to federal grants,
49:33 so this just helps from a outside perspective
49:38 to say, hey, we got it in policy,
49:39 we got it covered, we’re doing it.
49:40 - Absolutely. - Yeah.
49:41 - And then the philosophy that I was told when I got here,
49:47 and it’s in statute, it’s in law, and we follow these things
49:52 that doesn’t necessarily need to be in a policy,
49:55 because it’s already in the statute,
49:57 but I’m fine with this.
49:59 - Yeah.
50:01 - Okay, so the next one’s kind of wonky.
50:04 - Yeah, ours. - So 6-1-2-0
50:06 is safety deposit box. - First of all,
50:07 I wanna know what’s on this one
50:08 that has a safety deposit box.
50:10 But the thing is is that it’s actually in our policy,
50:13 it’s fund balance, so it’s like–
50:15 - Which is a unique policy.
50:17 - So we’re talking about the safety deposit box,
50:20 and this is talking about the fund balance.
50:22 So Ms. Lesinski–
50:26 - And Neola fund balance is 62.35.
50:28 - Right.
50:32 - So Ms. Lesinski, are you okay?
50:35 - So firstly, we should probably decide,
50:37 do we need a safety deposit box policy?
50:39 - Hang on, hang on, hang on just a second.
50:41 - You know, I can talk too.
50:42 - But I’m just trying to get through the process.
50:44 Just hang on a second.
50:44 Ms. Lesinski, it makes sense for us to move 61.20
50:48 that is in our current policy to the one that Neola does.
50:50 So we’re gonna rename it.
50:52 Are you guys okay with that?
50:53 - Or renumber it.
50:54 - Right, renumber it, I’m sorry.
50:55 Renumber it is the first round, getting that taken care of.
50:58 - As long as we don’t currently have a 62.35,
51:00 I don’t think we do, but let me just roll the check, hang on.
51:03 - Well, if we get there, we can look at it then.
51:07 But if you’re okay with renumbering it to that,
51:09 now we can come back to 61.20,
51:11 which is safety deposit box.
51:14 And this talks you guys to the, it’s pretty simple, right?
51:18 So Ms. Campbell, you had something to say?
51:22 Ms. Campbell.
51:23 - I don’t think we need a safety deposit box.
51:26 - Do we currently have safety deposit box
51:28 at any of our schools?
51:29 Is that something that’s being used?
51:29 - I don’t think it’s at a school.
51:30 - Or at the bank.
51:31 - Yeah, it’s at a bank.
51:32 - Out of the bank, sorry.
51:33 - Well, we have four of them.
51:35 - Oh, sorry.
51:38 - These are very quiet mics.
51:39 - Where the Armor Card delivers the dollars,
51:44 it’s in one big deposit box.
51:47 But probably not talking about the same thing here.
51:50 - No. - No.
51:52 - No, it says out of bank.
51:53 - I don’t want a policy saying that we need to have that.
51:55 - No, we don’t need that, but when we,
51:57 just in case I’m not around, when we get around,
52:00 ‘cause we’re moving kinda slower than we thought,
52:02 when we get around to 62.35,
52:04 can we go ahead and talk about our 61.20
52:07 before we, our 61.20 before we get off of it?
52:10 - Yeah, fund balance.
52:11 - So wait, wait, wait, Miss Campbell, you’re saying
52:13 we wanna talk about 61.20 that’s currently ours
52:16 that we’re gonna change because that’s an area of concern.
52:18 - Right.
52:19 - What other ones do you have an area of concern over
52:20 besides that so I can make sure that we address them before?
52:22 - I have huge concerns, and I mean they’ll be,
52:23 they’re gonna come back to us.
52:25 And I thought about typing this all up,
52:26 sending it to Paul, but it’s too much.
52:29 - So this is the only one, though,
52:30 that you have a lot of concern over?
52:31 - No. - Okay.
52:33 - I don’t have a, like, there’s nothing in here
52:34 that gives me headaches.
52:36 I just wanted to make sure we got to ‘em, that’s all.
52:38 - No, I appreciate it, and I’m gonna stay on the phone
52:40 for at least another hour, so when I have to go.
52:42 - All right, so then– - So this one, our Brevard,
52:45 so Brevard has a specific fund balance rule.
52:48 The state rule is you have to have 3%
52:52 designated to contingency reserve,
52:54 and if you ever get below 2% ‘cause you have to use
52:56 some of it, then you have to write up a plan to the state,
52:59 how are you gonna get back up there and all that, right?
53:01 Hillsborough’s been dealing with that
53:02 for the last couple years.
53:05 - We did it for years. - But Brevard has a
53:06 specific 3 1/2% just to kinda give us that extra cushion.
53:10 So that’s not gonna be in any NEOLA policy.
53:13 So if we move this to 6235, my suggestion would be
53:17 that we maintain the language that is Brevard-specific
53:22 to make it 3 1/2% cushion.
53:26 And then along with that, I just had a question.
53:30 For several years now, Cindy, since I’ve been on the board,
53:34 that reserve, that 3 1/2% reserve,
53:37 it’s been the same amount, it’s been like 19 million
53:40 something or other, it hasn’t really moved up,
53:43 but shouldn’t it change every year,
53:44 or has it been adjusted?
53:46 I’m trying to think of the budget presentation
53:48 you guys adjusted, and I’m sorry, I can’t remember.
53:50 - We did adjust it, ‘cause our revenue went up,
53:53 so we had to adjust it for a couple,
53:55 I think two million, I think we increased it.
53:58 - So we’re over 20 million for that, okay, thank you.
54:02 - All right, so do we wanna put anything in here
54:06 about the fund balance for the medical,
54:11 that it has to be at 10%?
54:14 - I think that would be a–
54:16 - It’s kind of our own state requirement,
54:18 is that anywhere?
54:21 ‘Cause the state, ‘cause we have our fund balance
54:24 at 3 1/2%, but it’s required by state,
54:27 I just didn’t know it.
54:28 - Yeah, it’s required by law, it’s two months.
54:33 Worth of– - 60 days of run-out.
54:35 - Payments, yes. - Yeah, it usually is about,
54:37 yeah, so– - It’s over,
54:39 it’s about $12 million, a little more.
54:41 - 10%, yeah.
54:45 All right, so if that’s not needed to be in here,
54:48 because we follow it and everything else, it’s fine,
54:50 I just saw fund balance and everything else.
54:51 So here’s what we have, is there’s some other changes to it
54:54 to bring it up to fund, to the same thing.
54:56 I think I agree with Ms. Campbell
54:57 to keep it at 3 1/2%. - Yes, I agree.
55:00 But I would like to give Ms. Losinski the opportunity
55:03 to look at 6235 and see if there’s anything
55:06 that is counterproductive to what we do normally.
55:09 Does that make sense?
55:11 So that would be good.
55:12 Now, we can go back to 6120, safety deposit box,
55:17 we already moved past that one.
55:19 So everybody’s okay with the fund balance one
55:23 so we can move on? - Mm-hmm.
55:24 - Okay.
55:25 And Ms. Campbell, you leave in 12 minutes,
55:28 so we’ll get moving.
55:29 So 6140 is the next one on our Neola updates.
55:36 And it’s pretty much the same thing, it goes back to 2002.
55:40 It has a couple more references,
55:42 but besides that, I think it’s okay.
55:45 What I would like to do is just add the references
55:47 that are there.
55:49 - We actually have more.
55:49 - We have more than they do.
55:51 - Right. - Yeah.
55:52 - I mean, if it’s not needed, then we can–
55:55 - If I recall, that is our,
55:57 that’s like the main school board authority.
55:59 - Yeah, the Florida statute one, yeah.
56:00 - So it’s powers and duties of a school board.
56:02 So it’s not irrelevant.
56:07 - Yeah.
56:08 - Unless it’s inside there. - I think this one’s good.
56:10 - I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it in there,
56:13 but whatever.
56:13 - Yeah, I said leave this one the way that it is.
56:15 It hasn’t been updated from Neola
56:17 and leave that statute on there.
56:19 - You guys are okay?
56:20 - Look, one we don’t have to do anything on.
56:21 - So what we’re saying is leave ours the same way
56:24 with the extra statutory laws referenced.
56:27 - The next one’s version two,
56:28 so we’re not opting for that.
56:30 - Yeah, so now, right, and now the next one is 6144,
56:34 which is investments.
56:36 Looks to me like–
56:37 - We did an extensive revision of this two years ago.
56:43 - When it’s stapled, I’m like,
56:44 oh, I know this is a doozy this fall.
56:46 - This one came up.
56:48 So the one that’s inside of our policy that we printed out
56:52 is Neola up in, we revised it in 2021.
56:56 This Neola one was 2013, but not modified by.
57:02 I think we should just send this one to staff
57:04 and have staff take a look at it.
57:05 - I think this one’s current, though, honestly,
57:07 ‘cause their Neola version is 2021.
57:09 Where are you seeing 2013 at, sorry?
57:11 - The Neola copyright–
57:12 - Oh, at the very bottom.
57:14 - It says, but she updated it, modified it on 23.
57:17 I would literally, if staff’s okay and Neola,
57:21 you know what I mean?
57:22 It’s got so many cross-references and everything else.
57:24 It’s massive.
57:25 It’s a lot bigger here than it is inside our policy,
57:27 inside this Neola.
57:29 So I would say if she could review this,
57:32 take a look at it.
57:33 - Because our policy is actually more detailed.
57:36 - That’s what I was saying.
57:37 Ours is more detailed than the Neola one that’s up here.
57:40 I would say that I’d like to keep the one that we have,
57:43 as long as it contains the 6144 investments component.
57:48 Does that make sense?
57:49 - Yeah, it doesn’t.
57:50 I think what would be good though is to understand
57:52 why we chose to stay with the Neola 2011 template,
57:56 even though this was revised in 2021.
57:58 And Neola is looking, I mean,
58:00 their suggested template to use is a 2013, so.
58:05 - Well, I can tell you one of the conversations we had,
58:07 and I can’t remember if we ended up in this policy.
58:09 Paul, you were here at this time.
58:10 We had a conversation around, was it Russian investments?
58:14 - It was just, yeah, it wasn’t necessarily Russian.
58:17 It was, some of our banks had gotten fined
58:22 by the federal government for investing in like drug cartels
58:26 and had been fined for fraud activity.
58:29 - It was a big deal.
58:30 - We built in a component that allowed for discretion
58:33 in not investing in, even though that may have been
58:36 the greatest return on investment.
58:38 - And we literally had to get an opinion
58:39 from the attorney general.
58:40 - We got an intent, because the statute reads
58:42 like we’re supposed to maximize interest
58:45 over any other considerations.
58:49 So based on the plain language of the statute,
58:51 I wasn’t comfortable in saying we’re gonna forgo
58:54 the greatest return on that investment
58:56 over other considerations,
58:58 such as a bank may have been fined,
59:00 even though it’s the largest, most stable bank in the game.
59:04 - So this was a debate that came out.
59:06 I was also at the board of directors for the FSBA,
59:09 and it was pretty intense.
59:12 And there was no, you know what I mean?
59:13 There wasn’t, like what Paul was saying was exactly true.
59:16 I remember being in Tallahassee,
59:17 inside of the Howard Johnson’s that was up there.
59:20 It’s now a different thing.
59:21 - That was a small part of the update.
59:23 I think the other part of the update from two years ago
59:26 was that we hadn’t updated in a while,
59:29 and we needed to update it
59:31 to how we’re doing the investments.
59:34 - Which brings us to another conversation
59:35 that I think you wanna really get into.
59:37 Go ahead, that’s right. - I know, I’m like,
59:38 this is gonna, I don’t know if I wanna get into it.
59:40 I’m like, I feel like you’re gonna weed into the waters
59:42 on this one on certain companies that–
59:44 - Do business with. - That we do business with.
59:46 I think that, you know, I brought this up before,
59:48 and does that cross over into this?
59:50 I don’t know. - Well, what I will tell you
59:52 is when we get into the policies
59:54 that have the new statutory updates,
59:57 it specifically says the NEOLA updates from this year
1:00:00 are, we can’t, no ideological preference to vendors.
1:00:04 It specifically says in one, two, three, four,
1:00:09 five of the six policy updates for this year
1:00:13 is that you can’t do that.
1:00:15 - I will say this. - And it cuts both ways.
1:00:18 - This opens up a really good opportunity
1:00:20 for us to have that conversation around our investments,
1:00:22 because you guys haven’t had that
1:00:24 as part of your education yet.
1:00:27 So Ms. Lisinski, not the next board meeting,
1:00:30 but I would like to kinda have a presentation
1:00:33 on the investment sections of all of our investments.
1:00:37 They come up every board meeting we approve,
1:00:40 the next steps, but I think our new board members
1:00:43 could probably do a good overview of those investments.
1:00:45 If you can give a presentation on the September 19th,
1:00:48 I would say, it gives you enough time to prepare.
1:00:51 - Well, she’s also doing that, yeah.
1:00:54 - That’ll give her 12 days from her biggest night of the year
1:00:58 to get a presentation, so it might give her
1:00:59 a little more room. - If you need longer,
1:01:01 that’s fine, I was just saying.
1:01:04 - Okay, Mr. John Ford came and presented this policy,
1:01:09 I don’t know if you remember, two years ago,
1:01:10 and it was pretty, it was pretty good presentation,
1:01:15 so I can reach out to him and see if he can come.
1:01:18 - Yeah, could you send us the link for that video?
1:01:20 That would be good, just to,
1:01:22 it might answer a lot of my questions.
1:01:23 - That’s a great idea. - Yeah.
1:01:25 - The other thing I would do is,
1:01:27 there’s a lot of our investments that I would like to do.
1:01:30 If you could put me to the person in touch,
1:01:32 then if we don’t wanna do a presentation,
1:01:33 then you wanna just review it.
1:01:36 Our investments are at different years,
1:01:39 returns, all of that stuff.
1:01:41 I’d like to try to take a look at that, that’s all.
1:01:43 I’ll follow up with you on an email.
1:01:45 - But I do think that the video of that YouTube,
1:01:47 of that presentation would be helpful, ‘cause it was,
1:01:49 and I’d like it to, if you could just send it out.
1:01:51 - It feels like the debate was before that, though.
1:01:52 - I’ve slept a few times since then, I would.
1:01:54 - It feels like it was before that.
1:01:55 It felt like that might have been the end of a long,
1:01:58 ‘cause it feels like it was years ago
1:02:00 that we were having that debate.
1:02:01 - The last two years have felt like
1:02:02 an eternity, Mr. Stoson, that’s why it feels like that.
1:02:05 - Those are two separate things.
1:02:06 Number one is a request to the link to the board workshop
1:02:10 where Mr. Ford presented this policy and the changes.
1:02:14 But maybe a presentation about our current investments.
1:02:17 - Yeah. - Separate.
1:02:19 - And then when it’s appropriate
1:02:20 for Ms. Licenski and her staff.
1:02:23 - Understood.
1:02:24 - It might be, Ms. Licenski,
1:02:26 that you can just push out what you have,
1:02:28 and then we could review it,
1:02:29 and then that might be sufficient.
1:02:31 But I think in the later date of actually going through it
1:02:34 for the new board numbers so they understand it would be good.
1:02:37 - And Mr. Ford actually directed our current policy on this.
1:02:41 - Right.
1:02:44 - Awesome. - Okay.
1:02:45 - Thank you.
1:02:46 - All right.
1:02:47 - So to clarify for direction on 6144,
1:02:53 are we moving forward with our current policy, or?
1:02:56 - I think so, but what I wrote down
1:02:58 is to push for further review
1:02:59 if you guys wanna dig into it.
1:03:01 Do you wanna look at that, watch the review, and–
1:03:03 - I would love to see the video of where we were,
1:03:05 and cross-reference it with the new legislation
1:03:07 that just passed I think is also important
1:03:09 ‘cause there might be some things in there
1:03:10 that could get us in the weeds.
1:03:13 - What I would like to do, Dr. Rendell,
1:03:14 is just push this to the next review.
1:03:17 Yeah, I would take it out of the queue, let us review it.
1:03:20 Ms. Campbell, are you okay with that, to review the past,
1:03:23 give them the opportunity to review it?
1:03:25 - ‘Cause that’ll be a good,
1:03:26 ‘cause he gave us a good education
1:03:28 on what the legal requirements are,
1:03:30 a statute on what we can and can’t invest on,
1:03:32 what our main decision is.
1:03:33 Like I said, that’s why we had to have an AG opinion
1:03:35 about pulling out of things that were like drug cartels
1:03:38 and terrorists, banks were related to whatever.
1:03:41 It’s not like we were investing in terrorist groups,
1:03:43 but somebody was related to,
1:03:45 it was like seven degrees of seven bacon to somebody.
1:03:48 - Seven bacon? (laughs)
1:03:49 - Kevin Bacon. - Kevin Bacon, seven bacon.
1:03:52 - That kind of, but it was still drawing some attention,
1:03:55 but he makes it very clear, statute specifically says,
1:03:58 you have to do whatever is one, safest,
1:04:00 but two, is gonna get you the best return.
1:04:03 And you don’t get to go in there and say,
1:04:05 well, we like these, we like this,
1:04:06 it has to be based on the return.
1:04:08 And we had to get special permission or review
1:04:10 to be able to make even those changes.
1:04:12 So it was really good information.
1:04:17 - Okay. - Okay,
1:04:18 so we’re gonna push this, bring it back at a later date
1:04:20 so you can have the time to review.
1:04:21 - This isn’t on a queue, just to keep you up.
1:04:24 - This is just your reviewing for direction.
1:04:25 So we’re still plenty of time out
1:04:28 before we have to worry about it.
1:04:29 - Ms. Farnam, they asked for a video of the meeting.
1:04:34 It looks like the revision was on May 25th, 2021.
1:04:39 Might wanna look in that general area for it.
1:04:44 You’re awesome, thank you. - She’s on it.
1:04:46 - Thank you, next up is 6145.
1:04:49 Looks like there hasn’t been much of a change.
1:04:51 We added in that the superintendent and associate
1:04:54 superintendent of finance would be prepare the applications.
1:04:56 - We need to change that title
1:04:58 ‘cause that’s not what we call her.
1:04:59 - No.
1:05:01 - To the CFO.
1:05:05 - Whatever your title is, if you can add that in there.
1:05:07 (laughing)
1:05:09 - Just put your name, no, I’m just kidding.
1:05:11 It needs to say CFO.
1:05:12 - Well, I don’t know if she is
1:05:13 the assistant superintendent of financial services,
1:05:16 it might be.
1:05:17 But whatever your official title is, maybe change it.
1:05:20 - Associates superintendent is what this is.
1:05:23 - Oh yeah, I didn’t even,
1:05:23 I was trying to read it from the distance.
1:05:26 All right, so we’re okay with making that change
1:05:28 and moving on, 6145.01 is the next policy that we have.
1:05:35 Let me make sure here that that’s, yeah.
1:05:38 So this is, yeah, it’s a Brevard one.
1:05:40 It’s not inside of the Neolas.
1:05:43 It’s lease purchasing agreement debt service ratio.
1:05:46 - But this is actually in the different policy.
1:05:49 I thought, I read something that talked about
1:05:53 our debt services. - Of ours or theirs?
1:05:56 - Hang on, let me see if I can get my…
1:05:58 - I had a question.
1:06:01 And the last one, it says annually as the board,
1:06:02 budgets adopted the board shall review the existing level
1:06:04 of debt service ratio.
1:06:06 I know it’s probably in the big fat budget book
1:06:09 that you give us, but is that on that debt service ratio?
1:06:12 Is that, can you kind of point that out
1:06:16 when we get around to doing our budget?
1:06:20 - You wanna give the presentation,
1:06:21 I’ll make sure that I highlight that.
1:06:23 - That would be great, thank you.
1:06:24 - Okay.
1:06:26 - I thought I read this somewhere in a different policy.
1:06:30 It might have been a four to six, I don’t know.
1:06:33 This is the danger of going between too many things.
1:06:37 - Okay, let me just see if there’s a…
1:06:43 Yeah.
1:06:45 - We just searched all the policies.
1:06:47 - We don’t have anything for that services?
1:06:48 Okay, it must have been for a statute that I was reading.
1:06:51 - Probably, okay, so 6145.01, we’re all okay
1:06:54 with moving forward with as a Brevard policy, good.
1:06:58 Next one up is 6150, non-resident tuition.
1:07:03 - Yeah, I think this might be obsolete.
1:07:07 That was my question because I don’t think we,
1:07:10 if we have a student who, in this case,
1:07:13 I think it would be like someone who,
1:07:15 they don’t live in the county,
1:07:17 I think we just get their FTE, correct, right?
1:07:19 We’re not charging people tuition.
1:07:22 - That’s correct.
1:07:22 - Well, what about foreign exchange students?
1:07:24 - That, we have a policy separate from that.
1:07:26 - Right, yeah, I think those are governed
1:07:27 by the different visas you have.
1:07:30 - And there is one on that. - Not necessarily tuition.
1:07:32 - There is one in here that talks about that.
1:07:34 But I think, I just think this might be,
1:07:38 ‘cause we’re not collecting tuition
1:07:42 outside of our international student process
1:07:44 that we talked about before.
1:07:46 This actually looks like, you know,
1:07:47 someone doesn’t live in the county,
1:07:48 they come to one of our schools
1:07:49 that we’re charging them tuition,
1:07:50 and that’s not the way it works, right?
1:07:52 - And NELA has no policy here,
1:07:54 so this is a Brevard specific.
1:07:56 - Must be fired up about something.
1:08:00 I mean, all it does is say non-resident tuition rates,
1:08:03 so how would this be applied to,
1:08:05 so if we bring in somebody from a foreign, right,
1:08:08 a foreign exchange student, we would charge them for it?
1:08:11 - It depends on the visa.
1:08:13 Certain visas get to come and not be charged,
1:08:16 but if they’re under a certain type of student visa,
1:08:19 then we’re supposed to charge them a certain rate.
1:08:22 I can’t remember– - Because we can’t get the FTE.
1:08:24 - Right, they have no FTE, so.
1:08:26 - And then, are there any other non-resident tuition
1:08:29 that may come in besides being–
1:08:31 - And now you can go anywhere you want,
1:08:32 as long as you can get your kid there and they have space,
1:08:34 so it’s all statutory. - Okay.
1:08:37 So, I mean, I’m okay if you guys are okay with removing it?
1:08:42 - Yeah, if we don’t need this,
1:08:44 because the only thing, like I said,
1:08:45 the foreign exchange students, that would be a potential,
1:08:48 but I don’t think, I think this is literally
1:08:50 this obsolete language. - Yeah, I think it’s governed
1:08:51 by other statutes. - Yeah, okay.
1:08:55 Okay, and with that, I have to make my exit,
1:08:59 but I’ll still be listening.
1:09:00 - All right, are you tied, are you in pretty good,
1:09:04 or do we need to call you?
1:09:06 - Do you want us to– - Why don’t we take a recess
1:09:08 for a few minutes so she can get into the car
1:09:09 and get on the phone, is that fair?
1:09:10 - Yeah. - Oh, we’re gonna take a break.
1:09:12 - All right, take a break. - Thank you.
1:09:38 (suspenseful music)
1:16:36 .
1:18:10 » Welcome back, everybody. We are now on to the next policy
1:18:14 revision, which is 6152, student fees, fines, and charges.
1:18:19 » 6151.
1:18:20 » Wait a minute, 6151.
1:18:21 » 6152.
1:18:22 » 51. You’re skipping, and Neola has one that we don’t.
1:18:26 » Neola has it. We do not, right?
1:18:28 » Correct.
1:18:29 » Right.
1:18:31 » Yeah.
1:18:32 » Who knows what policy we’re on. It’s okay.
1:18:36 » Okay. So we are officially on 6151.
1:18:40 » Correct.
1:18:41 » Bad checks. Kat jumped up ahead. All right. This is in Neola,
1:18:46 but I don’t think we have it in ours, right?
1:18:48 » Correct.
1:18:49 » I do not.
1:18:50 » So, all right. I don’t think we need to have this. Do you
1:18:53 guys want to?
1:18:54 » I think I would –
1:18:55 » Yeah, I don’t either.
1:18:57 » Yeah.
1:18:58 » I think we’re good. Moving next to 6152. Inside of the Neola
1:19:06 template, you have two versions.
1:19:08 Let me check the updated 6152. We don’t have anything until 63.
1:19:13 So ours, if you look at it –
1:19:16 » That’s what needs to be updated.
1:19:18 » Yeah. This needs to be updated, but we need to make the
1:19:21 decision on which one that we’re going to update to,
1:19:25 because you have version one and version two, right?
1:19:29 Ms. Campbell, we have to update our policy, and what we’re doing
1:19:33 is –
1:19:34 » Yes, I agree.
1:19:35 » I’m going to ask each person if they wanted to use version
1:19:40 one or version two.
1:19:42 Do you have, since I wanted to come to you first, do you have
1:19:44 anything that you’d like to make a recommendation for?
1:19:49 » For 6152, you know what, I did not leave a note about the
1:19:53 version one, version two. I just said we needed an update, so –
1:19:57 » If you look at our policy –
1:19:58 » I’ll leave that up to whatever staff brings back, unless you
1:20:00 guys happen to see me.
1:20:02 » Yes, ma’am. I think if you look at our policy, it follows
1:20:05 more of the version one.
1:20:07 » Yeah.
1:20:08 » So I would say, I would ask if we could have staff look at
1:20:11 both but lean towards version one with the student fines and
1:20:15 charges.
1:20:16 If that’s okay with you guys, bring back the recommendations if
1:20:18 that’s okay.
1:20:19 » Yes.
1:20:20 » Ms. Campbell, are you okay with that?
1:20:23 » Yep.
1:20:24 » Okay. All right.
1:20:25 Moving on to 6152.01 waiver of student fees, of school fees.
1:20:35 So this is one that is a NEOLA template that we do not have, and
1:20:40 it gives qualifications for people who have free and reduced
1:20:45 lunch, who may be homeless, gives it the opportunity for us to
1:20:49 waive the fees for that.
1:20:51 » Which we currently do waive the fees for them, right? We just
1:20:53 don’t have this in policy.
1:20:55 » Correct.
1:20:57 » Sorry.
1:20:58 » Yeah, no, no, no. I like the idea behind it, but I know it
1:21:01 gets us into some areas that, you know what I mean, might need
1:21:04 review.
1:21:05 So, Ms. Campbell, what are your feelings on 6152.01 waiver of
1:21:10 school fees?
1:21:12 It’s not our current template, but it is our –
1:21:16 » Right.
1:21:17 » It is in the template.
1:21:18 » I just had written down what are we – I just had written
1:21:19 down what are we doing now.
1:21:21 » Right.
1:21:22 » If we have it somewhere else, I didn’t even know – I didn’t
1:21:24 look at the administrative procedures for any of these, but if
1:21:27 we have it somewhere, that’s fine, but if we need to have it in
1:21:29 there, I’m fine with them bringing it back to us.
1:21:32 » Yeah, I think this comes up with the lunch that kids have at
1:21:35 the end of the year. Remember, we were talking about that. It’s
1:21:38 about $6,000 a year, stuff like that.
1:21:40 » Right, so –
1:21:41 » Well, it also applies when people are applying for choice
1:21:44 schools, they can get a waiver for – but I think that we’re
1:21:48 doing okay with that anyway, so I’m not sure what other fees we
1:21:51 would waive.
1:21:53 » Sure. Ms. Zinske?
1:21:55 » Yeah, so accounting has an accounting internal school manual
1:22:02 that is – it’s got everything in there, and they update that
1:22:09 religiously, and that’s kind of what we’ve been – it is what we’ve
1:22:14 been using.
1:22:15 So we’ll continue to use that, and that’s what the schools have
1:22:20 and what we have, but we can – more than happy to make it
1:22:25 policy as well.
1:22:27 » Yeah, if you can take that document that you’re referencing
1:22:30 and then take it and combine it with 6152.01, make sure they’re
1:22:34 there, that would be great and bring something back.
1:22:38 » Okay.
1:22:39 » I think it would also be smart for us to add in there,
1:22:41 because some students might not fall necessarily under the free
1:22:44 or reduced lunch or even homelessness, but you might have a
1:22:47 family who endures a financial hardship that is a temporary
1:22:51 situation that maybe we could add into the policy something that
1:22:55 would allow for them to apply for a waiver on fees.
1:22:59 Just for – I mean, my daughter is in course, so there’s a $50
1:23:05 fee that’s being collected. I’m just thinking things like that
1:23:09 where it’s like, hey, this might be something that would be a
1:23:09 roadblock for a family, so to have it available on those
1:23:10 circumstances would probably be really good.
1:23:11 I think it would be smart to add it into our policy.
1:23:16 » Okay. So with that, we’re going to move forward with 6152.01
1:23:21 to go to Miss Lesinski for review on the document that they
1:23:24 already have at the school-based locations and come back to us
1:23:28 with a recommendation.
1:23:30 » Right.
1:23:31 » The next one is inside of our policy, we have 6180.
1:23:35 » Right.
1:23:36 » Which is not in the – it’s a Brevard one and it’s a sales
1:23:39 tax.
1:23:40 Just basically says that the administration is district staff.
1:23:44 I think that makes sense.
1:23:45 You guys are okay with keeping this one and moving it on as it
1:23:47 was?
1:23:48 » Yep, yep.
1:23:49 It’s been reviewed.
1:23:50 » Miss Campbell, you good?
1:23:53 » Yes.
1:23:54 » Okay.
1:23:55 Moving on from 6180, the next one up is 6180.01, allocation and
1:24:02 use of sales surtax.
1:24:04 » Right.
1:24:05 Brevard specific.
1:24:06 » Yep.
1:24:07 This is Brevard specific.
1:24:08 I think we keep this.
1:24:09 There hasn’t been anything that’s changed.
1:24:11 » We just revised and voted on this last week at our board
1:24:16 meeting.
1:24:18 » 6180.01, we changed?
1:24:21 » Yes, Sue brought one forward.
1:24:23 It just finished rulemaking.
1:24:25 So it might still be with Neola to get on the website.
1:24:28 » So we’re going to bring that back?
1:24:29 » No, it was approved.
1:24:30 » It’s approved.
1:24:31 » Yeah.
1:24:32 » So it’s just not in here?
1:24:33 » Yeah, it’s not updated on the website yet.
1:24:35 » Got it.
1:24:36 Okay.
1:24:37 So if that’s the case, then 6180.01, we move on.
1:24:42 6180.03, temporary transfer of sales surtax cash between groups.
1:24:47 Sounds pretty interesting.
1:24:50 If you guys are okay with keeping this and having staff review
1:24:52 it to see if they need any changes, I’m okay with that?
1:24:57 » Yeah.
1:24:58 » Okay.
1:24:59 » Yes.
1:25:00 » All right.
1:25:01 The next one that we have is 6210, which is fiscal planning.
1:25:06 It’s not in our current policies, but it is inside the Neola.
1:25:11 I’m not sure if you guys wanted to take a look at that and let
1:25:13 us, you know, make a decision on if we need to add it or not.
1:25:22 » Are you on 6210?
1:25:24 » Yes.
1:25:25 Yep. Sorry, I didn’t.
1:25:26 » So I had made the note that it seems like some of that is
1:25:29 covered in our 6120, that’s unbalanced policy, but we’re talking
1:25:33 about moving to a different number.
1:25:36 Whatever we do needs to be consistent with that.
1:25:42 » Okay.
1:25:45 » Yeah, I just think what I liked about this was the develop a
1:25:47 five-year capital work program and a five-year long-range budget
1:25:51 projection.
1:25:52 We kind of do that, but I don’t think that’s in any kind of a
1:25:54 policy, maybe not.
1:25:56 » The capital work plan is in policy.
1:26:00 » Right.
1:26:01 » Okay.
1:26:02 Okay.
1:26:03 Well, then we should be good.
1:26:05 So 6210, if you guys are okay with it, we don’t need it.
1:26:08 It doesn’t seem like it’s something that we need to add to our
1:26:10 components.
1:26:11 » No, I think it’s like – I don’t know why we’re doing these
1:26:14 things.
1:26:15 So, again, is it smart to have it in policy?
1:26:18 » I feel like each of the components is already in a different
1:26:20 policy.
1:26:21 » Yeah.
1:26:22 Okay.
1:26:23 So then –
1:26:24 All right.
1:26:26 Next one is 60 – so we’re not going to move on that.
1:26:29 The next one is 6220, budget preparation.
1:26:32 This is just that the superintendent shall present the budget
1:26:35 for review in accordance with –
1:26:37 we pretty much – this is – isn’t this pretty much state, like,
1:26:41 just – it’s pretty much already somewhere in statutory law, so
1:26:46 –
1:26:47 » And it’s in trim.
1:26:50 » So do we need to put it in here, or are we okay?
1:26:52 » I think we’re okay.
1:26:53 » Okay, we’re good?
1:26:54 » Mm-hmm.
1:26:55 » Okay, we’re good.
1:26:56 Ms. Campbell, we decide – what are your thoughts on 6220?
1:26:59 Ms. Lisinski said it’s already in trim.
1:27:01 » Yeah, I questioned whether we needed this one.
1:27:03 » Okay.
1:27:04 » In policy 6220 – so if we’re not going to have 6220, they’ll
1:27:07 need to change that.
1:27:09 There’s also a section where we have to decide are we going to
1:27:11 do loans to schools, and I think we had –
1:27:14 you know, Barbar does not do that, and so that would be my
1:27:17 recommendation also to continue that, to not add that part in
1:27:22 there.
1:27:23 » To not do bonuses to schools, okay.
1:27:28 » Well –
1:27:29 » Well, we have to pick options.
1:27:30 » It’s kind of a contested argument.
1:27:31 What ended up happening is, is that when we loaned to certain
1:27:35 schools, they had difficulty paying it back, and it fell back
1:27:39 onto the school district.
1:27:41 » Yeah.
1:27:42 » And then I think, like, there was a couple of them that were
1:27:44 out there, and that’s what Ms. Campbell’s referencing.
1:27:47 So are you guys –
1:27:50 » Yeah, I would not be in favor of doing loans.
1:27:53 » I didn’t think it was a bad idea, but what I would like to –
1:27:56 » Any request for a loan would have to come to the board for
1:27:59 approval.
1:28:00 » All right.
1:28:02 Ms. Campbell, what I would like to do is offer this to staff to
1:28:06 develop what their recommendations would be, since there seems
1:28:11 to be some updates that need to occur, and then have them bring
1:28:14 that to us.
1:28:15 Is that okay with you?
1:28:17 » Yes.
1:28:18 » Okay.
1:28:19 Does that sound okay with you guys?
1:28:20 » Uh-huh.
1:28:21 » Okay.
1:28:22 All right.
1:28:23 Well, 6233.
1:28:25 Direction is, is that the staff will take a look at what the new
1:28:28 version is and make recommendations to update.
1:28:31 Okay?
1:28:34 All right.
1:28:35 6320.
1:28:37 » NOLA has a 6234.
1:28:40 » I’m sorry.
1:28:41 I got ahead of myself.
1:28:42 All right.
1:28:43 So the next one up is 6234, use of discretionary lottery funds.
1:28:49 Let’s talk about that.
1:28:55 Are we currently receiving lottery funds, Ms. Lasinski?
1:29:07 » The school recognition dollars come from lottery, and that is
1:29:13 all, but we don’t have discretionary lottery dollars that come
1:29:18 to us.
1:29:19 » What is discretionary lottery dollars as opposed to, what’s
1:29:23 the difference?
1:29:25 Is it like a different pool of money?
1:29:26 » I think this might be really old.
1:29:28 » Yeah, I honestly don’t think schools have gotten that for
1:29:29 years.
1:29:30 » This is 2009 from NOLA, so it’s been a while.
1:29:33 » Okay.
1:29:35 » All right.
1:29:36 Ms. Campbell, there’s some discussion wrapped around 6234 that
1:29:39 we do no longer need it because we don’t have any discretionary
1:29:43 lottery funds, and that it’s an old policy.
1:29:46 Are you okay with that direction, or do you have something you
1:29:48 wanted to bring up?
1:29:49 » Yeah, well, I don’t want to add any more policies that we don’t
1:29:52 need, but my concern is I thought we were still receiving about
1:29:56 $6 million a year from the lottery.
1:29:59 But if I’m remembering the way NOLA, because I’m not looking at
1:30:02 it, I promise, the way NOLA had it, it said there was something,
1:30:06 a statutory reference to every school board has to have a policy
1:30:08 showing how they’re going to spend this.
1:30:11 So if we’re required to, we probably need to put it in, but I’m,
1:30:15 you know, with the change of the state budget, it may not be
1:30:19 relevant anymore.
1:30:21 I don’t know.
1:30:22 » Well, with the school recognition dollars, we do have to
1:30:25 submit, or the schools do have to submit how they plan on using
1:30:28 those dollars.
1:30:30 » Correct.
1:30:31 » So why don’t we do this?
1:30:32 Since it seems like there is some sort of funding wrapped around
1:30:34 it, why don’t we have staff look over the discretionary funds,
1:30:36 this policy, and see if we need to put it in place.
1:30:39 And then if you can, Ms. Lesinski, bring it back.
1:30:42 Are you okay with Ms. Campbell then verifying that if we are
1:30:45 receiving it, that this policy may need or may not need to be
1:30:49 referenced and bringing it back to us?
1:30:52 » Yeah.
1:30:53 » And can I dig a little deeper on this school recognition fund
1:30:55 conversation since we’re having it?
1:30:57 » Uh-oh.
1:30:58 » How are schools recognized?
1:31:01 I’m assuming that the dollar amount that they receive is tied to
1:31:03 how well the school is performing.
1:31:05 Is that a correct assumption?
1:31:08 » Correct.
1:31:09 If they achieve an A or they improve a letter grade, they get a
1:31:12 set amount of money based on their enrollment.
1:31:15 » Okay.
1:31:16 And is that something that we decided here at the district or is
1:31:18 that something that’s –
1:31:19 » It’s a state formula.
1:31:20 » State has told us that that’s how that has to be dispersed.
1:31:23 » Correct.
1:31:24 » Okay.
1:31:25 » Correct.
1:31:26 » All right.
1:31:27 It just seems like that leaves some of our more difficult
1:31:29 schools or more challenged schools that don’t receive additional
1:31:31 funds though that really could potentially use it.
1:31:34 So that might be something that we want to talk to the
1:31:35 legislation about too.
1:31:37 » Yeah.
1:31:38 » As far as –
1:31:39 » That’s been how this school recognition money has been
1:31:41 dispersed for 20 years.
1:31:43 » Yeah.
1:31:45 But if we’re trying to bring those schools up that are down,
1:31:47 right?
1:31:48 I mean there’s that.
1:31:49 » I think the other thing is that a lot of the other schools
1:31:51 receive Title I funds.
1:31:53 » Yeah.
1:31:54 » That’s a great review.
1:31:55 I mean that is – like I think we should look at that as an
1:31:58 overview of – you know what I mean?
1:32:00 Because there may be – I’m sure that staff is already doing
1:32:02 that.
1:32:03 So total funding going to each school based on different –
1:32:05 » Well, and to be clear too, the school recognition funds are
1:32:08 money that’s spent directly at the school or is that dispersed
1:32:11 amongst teachers and staff or –
1:32:13 » Most of it goes to staff bonuses.
1:32:16 The school creates a plan and it’s voted on by the staff and the
1:32:20 school advisory council.
1:32:23 » So then it seems like –
1:32:24 » But the bulk of it goes to staff bonuses.
1:32:26 » So then that would even cause a further problem to staffing
1:32:28 some of our more difficult schools because they’re going to miss
1:32:30 an additional bonus.
1:32:32 » That could be accurate.
1:32:33 » That would be accurate.
1:32:34 So this would be something that would be good to talk to our
1:32:36 legislation about.
1:32:38 » Ms. Campbell, what was the discussion was wrapped around some
1:32:41 of our high performing schools may not be some of the ones that
1:32:44 are needing the school recognition funds.
1:32:47 So Ms. Wright had mentioned that maybe part of our legislative
1:32:50 discussion platform should be that we discuss how to possibly reallocate
1:32:55 some of those funding sources because we’d see the better
1:32:59 teachers arguably would go to a place where they could receive
1:33:01 that funding
1:33:02 rather than going to a school where they don’t.
1:33:04 So I think it’s a much good argument.
1:33:06 I just wanted to kind of bring it up to you if you didn’t hear
1:33:09 it.
1:33:10 » No, I heard most of it.
1:33:11 The only person I can’t really – I can’t hear is Dr. Rendell
1:33:14 and Cindy very well.
1:33:15 I think they just need to get a little closer to their
1:33:16 microphones if they’re on.
1:33:18 » Okay.
1:33:19 » 10-4.
1:33:20 » All right.
1:33:21 Dr. Rendell says 10-4.
1:33:22 All right.
1:33:23 The next one that I have here is 6235.
1:33:27 » We discussed that with 6120, yeah.
1:33:30 It’s the one that we discussed, are you guys okay with the
1:33:32 direction that we had?
1:33:33 I think it was 6120 that we were looking at that.
1:33:35 » Right.
1:33:36 We’re going to renumber it.
1:33:37 » Yeah.
1:33:38 Ms. Campbell, we’re back on to the fund balance from 6120.
1:33:40 We just wanted to make sure that there’s nothing that you wanted
1:33:42 to add here before we move on.
1:33:44 It’s just kind of hunting it here and then having them review it.
1:33:48 » No, I’m good with that.
1:33:50 » Okay.
1:33:51 So the next one is 6320, which is purchasing and contracting for
1:33:54 commodities and contractual services.
1:33:57 It seems that this policy came up in 2022.
1:34:01 It’s one that we do not have in our current policies.
1:34:04 » Yeah, we do.
1:34:05 » I was wondering if you guys are okay with –
1:34:07 » We do.
1:34:08 We just have it called procurement and – yeah, contracting.
1:34:11 Sorry, I’m trying to – we have that policy.
1:34:15 6320?
1:34:16 » Yeah.
1:34:17 » Hang on a second.
1:34:19 » It’s stapled.
1:34:20 I was going to say look for a staple.
1:34:22 You were ahead of yourself.
1:34:23 » Got ahead of myself.
1:34:24 Got ahead of myself.
1:34:25 Okay.
1:34:26 So we currently have this and let me check the – looks like we
1:34:35 were last revised in 2019.
1:34:37 This was last revised in 2022.
1:34:39 Ms. Campbell, floor is open for you.
1:34:41 What would you like to say on this?
1:34:43 » Yeah, so I definitely think we need to look at these updates
1:34:46 as well as the current legislative updates from just on the list.
1:34:51 This is the first one on the list of ones they updated this year.
1:34:54 They had the statement about no preference for certain, you know,
1:34:58 political or ideological things for vendors.
1:35:02 I just – I’m going to make a generic statement for the next
1:35:04 several because I’m about to have to like mute for a bit.
1:35:08 But just – we have this one but we don’t have the next one, two,
1:35:11 three, four, five, like seven, but they’re all related to
1:35:14 procurement.
1:35:16 So – and I know when we had our last general counsel, Amy Inval,
1:35:19 like procurement was her thing.
1:35:21 So she did a really thorough job of making sure our procurement
1:35:23 policy was thorough.
1:35:25 But these next seven, if we’re – you know, if there’s something
1:35:28 in those that we don’t have in our 6320, then we need – we
1:35:33 might need those extra.
1:35:34 But if we already have them in our 6320, I don’t want to add a
1:35:38 bunch of policy numbers just, you know, just to have them.
1:35:42 » Duly noted, Ms. Campbell.
1:35:45 I think the idea would be to have staff look at it and add them
1:35:48 too if there’s any updates.
1:35:51 I understand where you’re going 100%.
1:35:55 » There is one section in here where it talks about the vendor
1:35:58 preference for veteran business enterprises, which I don’t know
1:36:02 that we have that in ours.
1:36:04 I think that that would be something very good to add.
1:36:10 That’s optional, so.
1:36:14 » Ms. Campbell, Ms. Wright wanted to make sure that we added
1:36:18 the veteran preference for the procurement.
1:36:21 » Yeah, I wanted to say – oh, maybe I’m thinking we have a
1:36:23 veteran preference for employees.
1:36:25 But I was going to say that just came to us sometime in last
1:36:27 year, but that may have been not for vendors.
1:36:30 » We do.
1:36:33 Okay.
1:36:34 I would – I like that idea also.
1:36:36 So what I would – what I think we should do is if you look at
1:36:38 these, just like Ms. Campbell was saying, vendor preference,
1:36:42 construction contracting, cone of silence, procurement.
1:36:46 The question is do we want to add one big policy to include all
1:36:50 of these or do we want to have them branch out?
1:36:54 Because what Ms. Campbell is saying, and it looks to be true, is
1:36:58 we don’t have any of those others because they’re actually
1:37:03 inside of this larger one, right?
1:37:06 » I might have just got ahead of myself on that one because,
1:37:10 sorry, I did, I think.
1:37:13 Hold on.
1:37:14 I’m on the next policy.
1:37:16 I scrolled way too far.
1:37:17 » 62.01.
1:37:18 » Yeah.
1:37:19 Sorry.
1:37:23 » So to Ms. Camp, so what she had mentioned is as we’re going
1:37:26 through these, if they’re not inside of the larger policy –
1:37:30 » Yeah.
1:37:31 » Which is okay with sending them, but if they are inside of
1:37:33 there, that she would not want to create a bunch of policies.
1:37:36 » Yeah.
1:37:37 » Which I agree with.
1:37:38 But when you look at – if you look at – so purchasing and
1:37:41 contracting, I would say, needs to be updated because of the
1:37:44 difference in the years.
1:37:46 So that’s number one.
1:37:47 I would feel very confident that 63.20 needs to be updated.
1:37:51 And then moving forward, are you guys okay with that?
1:37:54 » Absolutely, yeah.
1:37:55 » Okay.
1:37:56 So Paul, if you can have that updated and have staff look at it.
1:37:58 Next one is the vendor preference.
1:38:01 This is not in 63.20?
1:38:05 » Yeah, no, it’s not.
1:38:06 Anything in there, so –
1:38:12 » That’s weird.
1:38:13 It’s like – so you’ve got –
1:38:15 » Well, some of it is.
1:38:16 Like the bid protest stuff is built into our policy.
1:38:18 » Right.
1:38:19 » But some of it’s not, so.
1:38:21 » I think that’s where Ms. Campbell was saying we might want to
1:38:24 just send all of those to purchasing and see if it’s not in
1:38:28 there, do we need to add it or should we add it?
1:38:31 » Well, so for me, like you – like not only is bid protest in
1:38:36 63.01 in ours, but then it’s also in 60 – I’m sorry.
1:38:43 » There’s a 63.26.
1:38:45 » Then it’s in there, then it’s in 6320.01, then it’s in 6326.
1:38:51 So this is basically spider web of different policies.
1:38:55 » Okay.
1:38:56 » So I think we use what Ms. Campbell said and just take 6320
1:39:01 and then take all of them all the way up to 6326 and combine
1:39:07 them.
1:39:08 So I’ll read them to you.
1:39:10 » So 6320 which is purchasing and contracting, update that one.
1:39:15 And then the 6320.01 vendor preference, 632020 – or 22
1:39:21 construction contracting, 6324 cone of silence, 6325 procurement,
1:39:28 6326 bid protests would all be reviewed to see if they fit into
1:39:32 6320.
1:39:34 Does that make sense?
1:39:35 » Yep.
1:39:36 » This is going to be like a 45 page long policy that it’s all
1:39:38 said and done.
1:39:39 » But it goes along with our new system and everything else.
1:39:42 » I know, I know.
1:39:43 » So I’m really excited about it.
1:39:49 All right.
1:39:50 If you guys are okay with moving up to – let me get past this
1:39:54 one.
1:39:55 » All right.
1:39:56 We don’t have the next one either which is acquisition
1:39:58 professional.
1:40:00 Well, this would kind of still go into procurement, would it not?
1:40:02 » So 60 – oh, I missed something here.
1:40:05 » 6330.
1:40:06 » Right.
1:40:07 6330 should be your next one.
1:40:08 » 6340.
1:40:09 » Right.
1:40:10 So 6330 we’re going to need to add – yeah.
1:40:13 So 6330 acquisition of professional, 6334 prequalification of
1:40:18 contractors.
1:40:20 That should also be a part of the 6320.
1:40:24 » Procurement process.
1:40:27 Okay, Paul.
1:40:28 » Mm-hmm.
1:40:29 » All right.
1:40:30 You’re right, Ms. Campbell.
1:40:31 6340 is our next one.
1:40:32 We have currently – we have a policy with that.
1:40:36 » Looks like the last time this Neola one was updated was 2023
1:40:43 with a new statute.
1:40:44 But it looks like 2002 is the last time it was really used.
1:40:48 Ours has more statutory references inside of it.
1:40:55 But ours, modifications.
1:40:58 So –
1:41:01 » In letter C, we need to update some position titles.
1:41:06 There’s a note that I have.
1:41:07 » Project review task force.
1:41:19 » So this gets into some of the stuff that – go ahead, Ms.
1:41:21 Campbell.
1:41:22 I’m sorry.
1:41:23 » Yeah.
1:41:24 I didn’t write down which position titles.
1:41:26 That’s the only note I have is we need to update the position
1:41:28 titles in letter C.
1:41:30 So I’m sorry.
1:41:31 I can’t give you more detail on that.
1:41:33 » So this is the policy that like when you have your friends
1:41:36 that come up and say I’ll build the dugout for the team, right?
1:41:40 I’ll donate the playground.
1:41:41 I’ll do all that stuff inside of here.
1:41:44 So it seems that there’s a little bit different of the maximums.
1:41:48 So the Neola template that we have gets into about 25,000.
1:41:52 We’re at about 50,000.
1:41:53 That’s probably because in 2002 when it was made for the Neola
1:41:55 template, that was an appropriate number.
1:41:58 $25,000 doesn’t even get you a playground equipment anymore.
1:42:02 So I feel confident that ours is strong, but I would like to ask
1:42:06 staff to review it just to make sure.
1:42:08 And then like Ms. Campbell said, change some of those staff
1:42:14 descriptions.
1:42:16 » Yeah.
1:42:17 I propose we just update the current policy to make the
1:42:20 corrections.
1:42:22 » Yep.
1:42:23 Easy enough.
1:42:24 Good to go?
1:42:25 All right.
1:42:26 Next up, change orders.
1:42:28 Which we don’t have, I don’t think.
1:42:32 We have payment of claims was our next policy.
1:42:34 So 6345.
1:42:36 So we currently do this, though.
1:42:39 I mean, honestly, this is –
1:42:40 » All the time.
1:42:41 » Yeah.
1:42:42 Sue brings forward any kind of change order on contracts that
1:42:45 she has that – I don’t know what the dollar amount that
1:42:47 triggers it is, but it’s –
1:42:49 » Yeah.
1:42:50 What I would like to do is just say give this to Sue and say Sue,
1:42:53 do you need this as a policy?
1:42:55 If not, because the change orders, they always happen.
1:42:59 Every single contract, everything else.
1:43:01 Thank you, Ms. Lisinski.
1:43:02 Sorry we’re out of your area.
1:43:04 » I think she brings them to us for any change order that’s
1:43:06 over $50,000, I believe.
1:43:08 » Yeah, but I think it would be great just to have Sue and her
1:43:10 department look over this and see, do we need this?
1:43:12 Is it covered somewhere else?
1:43:13 » Okay.
1:43:14 » Good.
1:43:15 You good?
1:43:16 » Good.
1:43:17 » All right.
1:43:18 Use of the credit cards.
1:43:19 6423.
1:43:20 » I know.
1:43:21 Okay.
1:43:22 » Is the next one.
1:43:23 And I mean, we have – don’t we have P cards?
1:43:28 » Correct.
1:43:29 » And – but I don’t think they’re credit cards.
1:43:33 They’re just debit cards, right?
1:43:36 » They can be processed as credit cards.
1:43:38 » Okay.
1:43:39 » So Mr. Susan, the next Miola run actually refers to P cards.
1:43:43 So my question is, we probably need either this one or the next
1:43:46 one, but if the next one talks about P cards, that’s probably
1:43:48 more appropriate for us.
1:43:50 It’s just I don’t – I didn’t know like – so I didn’t – I
1:43:53 think the other one is appropriate, which is credit cards.
1:43:57 I just didn’t know that we actually had some that might run as a
1:43:59 credit card.
1:44:00 You know what I mean?
1:44:01 Because usually your P cards are just taking out of the balance
1:44:04 of the bank account.
1:44:06 Which that’s a whole other mess.
1:44:07 I agree with you.
1:44:08 What I would like to do, Dr. Rendell, is hand 6420 and the other
1:44:12 one which is 6423 to you guys and just take a look at it, see
1:44:16 what is appropriate to bring back and go from there.
1:44:19 If that’s okay.
1:44:20 » 6423 and 6424.
1:44:22 » Yes, sir.
1:44:23 Because they’re kind of the same thing.
1:44:24 » Exactly.
1:44:25 » And if you wanted to take a look at those, I think that we
1:44:26 could do that.
1:44:27 » You might be able to condense them into one policy.
1:44:29 » Yep.
1:44:32 Next one up is 6440, cooperative purchasing.
1:44:35 School board recognizes the advantage of centralized purchasing.
1:44:38 This gets into, you know what I mean, being able to work with
1:44:42 larger co-ops.
1:44:44 So you have some that are like federal, some that are state,
1:44:46 some that are there’s consortium agreements and stuff like that
1:44:49 that are out there.
1:44:51 We don’t have this currently in policy.
1:44:54 I don’t know if we have to in order to do it because I know we
1:44:57 do.
1:44:58 » Is this similar to what a piggyback contract is where we’re
1:45:00 kind of looking at another, a vendor that’s used somewhere else
1:45:03 in the state and we just hop in?
1:45:05 Isn’t that, wouldn’t that be similar to this or no?
1:45:08 » Piggybacking is where you’re just jumping onto another
1:45:10 contract that exists.
1:45:12 Consortiums where like I know they’re big with the smaller
1:45:15 districts where they’ll all go in on a purchase because they can
1:45:19 purchase more and get better deals because they’re buying in
1:45:23 bigger volumes.
1:45:24 » But we wouldn’t be considered a small district anyways.
1:45:27 » They still have like a central Florida consortium so if you
1:45:29 jump, you could jump in there potentially.
1:45:32 Like if everybody was buying the same books, for instance, you
1:45:35 could potentially order in a larger volume and get discounted
1:45:38 rates.
1:45:39 » You’re right, the break point of discounts are below us so
1:45:42 like with healthcare with a lot of the other things that go on,
1:45:46 our break points are lower than us where there’s prices.
1:45:49 But what it does is, and this is something that I was working on
1:45:52 a couple of years ago, is that we could open it up to all of our
1:45:56 other cities and say, look, let’s do a janitorial services
1:45:59 contract and you guys can be a part of it.
1:46:02 But it won’t help us but it’ll help all the other cities and
1:46:05 that was something that was on the list of us when we go to the
1:46:08 cities because like you have say Melbourne Beach has 34
1:46:11 employees.
1:46:12 » Right.
1:46:13 » When they go to buy tissue paper, it’s going to be this X
1:46:15 amount of dollars but if they were to join us, you know what I
1:46:18 mean, it would be a little bit different.
1:46:20 » Would that cause any kind of additional work for our staff
1:46:22 though as far as processing it or anything?
1:46:25 » All it is is a cost to be part of the procurement.
1:46:28 » Mr. Susan?
1:46:29 » Yes, ma’am?
1:46:30 » I remember that when Christy did the presentation, we are in
1:46:36 a consortium.
1:46:38 The county, I don’t see it as a point for that but she did say
1:46:41 we are in a consortium.
1:46:43 Not other school districts but with other government entities
1:46:46 and groups so it might be good if we don’t have that as part of
1:46:49 our procurement policy if we need it, let her take a look at it
1:46:52 because she did say that we are in one.
1:46:55 » Yeah, I know that we are in some of them and I know that
1:46:57 there are some that are still on the books from before that we
1:46:59 don’t take advantage of or do but no, I think it’s a good thing.
1:47:04 I think that we can utilize it.
1:47:06 I just don’t know if it’s somewhere else.
1:47:07 » Yeah, I mean if we’re, I don’t disagree that it could be
1:47:09 beneficial to some of our municipalities that are smaller so I
1:47:12 would say let’s kick this one to Christy and ask her is this
1:47:15 something that we currently are offering?
1:47:18 This would be a great way to help some of our local governments.
1:47:21 » It’s related to 6450, the next one as well.
1:47:24 » What did you say Paul?
1:47:26 » 6450 is purchasing locally so it brings in a lot of the local
1:47:29 government so if we want to kick both of those to Christy we can
1:47:33 do that and have her evaluate.
1:47:35 » Yeah, so just so you guys know that consortium is good
1:47:38 because we can benefit some of the other ones but there are some
1:47:41 where if we join the county it gives us some significant price.
1:47:46 So like if we were able to on the healthcare, the majority of
1:47:49 healthcare stuff that you go through is pretty much under about
1:47:52 6,000.
1:47:54 Anything above that you’re going to get pretty much the same
1:47:56 rates but sometimes if you bundle by on healthcare you can
1:47:58 pretty much send a message to somebody that may not be doing a
1:48:01 good job.
1:48:02 Does that make sense?
1:48:03 So having those interlocals work two different ways.
1:48:05 Now the next, so if you’re okay with giving that to Christy,
1:48:07 that one, and asking her to review it.
1:48:10 » Both of those.
1:48:11 » But the other one I wanted to just talk to you real quick, 6450
1:48:14 local purchasing.
1:48:16 One of the problems that we have, I had a big, when we first
1:48:18 came out with local purchasing, like giving a percentage to the
1:48:21 local guy to get more and all that other stuff.
1:48:24 That’s great but understand that sometimes that inhibits us
1:48:27 because the local person may not have the best rates, the best
1:48:31 job, the best all of that and might still get it.
1:48:34 5% is not bad.
1:48:35 I’ve seen and been a part of RFPs that are 25% of the local guys.
1:48:41 And that inhibited them for a better product.
1:48:44 So I think we send this to Christy because I think we already
1:48:47 have some of this stuff in there.
1:48:49 But I just wanted you guys to know that local purchasing, you
1:48:52 can do that but like when you go to say get vendors, like
1:48:55 construction, you may say okay well we want this local vendor to
1:48:59 do it.
1:49:00 They might not have the capacity to do what we need so they win
1:49:02 the bid and then we can’t get the job stuff.
1:49:05 Does that make sense?
1:49:06 » Yeah, I know.
1:49:07 I have mixed feelings on this one because I understand the local
1:49:09 preferential, like we want to employ our people, we want to make
1:49:12 sure that that money stays here in the county.
1:49:14 But I do understand there’s a time where that isn’t always
1:49:17 feasible to do.
1:49:18 It doesn’t make the most sense.
1:49:19 You can’t do it all the time.
1:49:20 » But I do know that like on the construction side, like Wharton
1:49:22 Smith and many of our other contractors use as much as they can.
1:49:26 Like if they can, they go local.
1:49:27 » Right.
1:49:28 » Which is a good thing and they get, I think that’s good.
1:49:31 So I would say $6,450 to go to them.
1:49:33 I just wanted to have that discussion real quick.
1:49:35 Thank you, Paul.
1:49:38 Next one is $6,460 vendor relations.
1:49:44 I think that this is another one we just send up to Christie for
1:49:46 review.
1:49:47 Are you guys okay with that?
1:49:48 » Would this kind of be like our conflict of interest?
1:49:51 » Yeah, there’s some stuff in there.
1:49:52 It should not be accepting from a compensation payment or
1:49:54 anything like that.
1:49:56 I think that you can see it referencing policies that are
1:49:59 already in existence for board members and school personnel.
1:50:02 It just kind of gives an overview to it and it’s in here.
1:50:05 So I would give it to Christie and if she feels like if we need
1:50:07 it, we can add it.
1:50:08 » Okay.
1:50:09 » Is that okay?
1:50:10 » Yep.
1:50:12 » Ms. Campbell.
1:50:13 » Yeah, I just had a quick note.
1:50:15 We do not have policy 1113, 3113, 4113, or 1214, or 4214.
1:50:23 So if they do decide to bring it back, we’ll make sure that we
1:50:25 refer to any policies that we actually have and don’t have those
1:50:29 in there.
1:50:30 » Yeah, but I do feel like some of those other ones, Ms.
1:50:32 Campbell, that I’m looking here, we’ve actually reviewed.
1:50:36 So yeah, let’s have them review it and take a look at it.
1:50:39 But I think that some of this stuff is in other places.
1:50:42 » Yeah.
1:50:43 » Okay, all right.
1:50:44 So is that good, clear direction for you, Mr. Gibbs?
1:50:47 Okay, moving on.
1:50:48 Payment of claims, $6,470.
1:50:51 We now have this one.
1:50:53 This is the first one that we have currently.
1:50:56 This was updated – we updated this in Brevard in 2014.
1:51:00 Neola was 2002.
1:51:04 You know, ours is a little bit different than theirs.
1:51:06 I don’t – you know.
1:51:08 The Neola update has much more in it.
1:51:17 I would ask if you guys are okay with – since we don’t really
1:51:19 have very deep knowledge on this, we pass it on to staff and
1:51:22 then we can review it and bring it back to us.
1:51:24 » Yeah.
1:51:25 » Is that okay with you, Ms. Campbell?
1:51:29 » Sorry, yes.
1:51:30 » Okay.
1:51:31 Next up is $6,480 expenditures.
1:51:35 I feel like this was last updated in 2016 in our book.
1:51:41 This was last updated on theirs in 2023.
1:51:44 I feel like this is something that we need to get the staff to
1:51:46 look over and update.
1:51:48 You guys okay with that?
1:51:49 » Mm-hmm.
1:51:50 » Ms. Campbell, everybody seems in agreeance to move this to
1:51:52 staff since there seems to be a significant update.
1:51:55 » Yes.
1:51:56 I agree.
1:51:57 It needs to be updated.
1:51:58 But also there’s a little section on the bottom that talks about
1:52:00 petty cash.
1:52:01 » Yeah.
1:52:02 » That if we don’t have a policy $6,620, we need to add that
1:52:04 section.
1:52:05 And we don’t have a $6,620, so we probably need to add that
1:52:08 little petty cash there.
1:52:10 » It’s if we want to use petty cash, which I’m not a big fan of
1:52:13 if we have key cards.
1:52:15 But yeah, I mean I just say let staff do it.
1:52:19 Do we get cash out, Dr. Rendella?
1:52:21 » Yes.
1:52:22 » Don’t answer that.
1:52:23 » What do you think that armored car is for?
1:52:27 » No, but petty cash is like, hey –
1:52:28 » No, I’m teasing.
1:52:29 It was a joke.
1:52:30 » Careful.
1:52:31 Oh, just keep moving.
1:52:32 » I’m sorry.
1:52:33 » And moving on.
1:52:34 » No.
1:52:35 » Okay.
1:52:36 » I think that the direction on that $6,480 is that the
1:52:38 expenditures goes to staff for review.
1:52:40 $6,490 is the next one.
1:52:43 » Which we don’t have.
1:52:45 » We do not have this one.
1:52:46 It deals with legal services for employees, officers and public
1:52:50 officials.
1:52:52 This is interesting considering some of the stuff that we’re
1:52:57 dealing with now.
1:52:59 If you guys want to have this conversation, look at this.
1:53:05 Ms. Campbell, what is your thoughts on this?
1:53:07 I have some that I’d like to say.
1:53:08 » $6,490.
1:53:09 » Yeah, $6,490.
1:53:10 » Yeah, I wanted to ask Paul’s opinion.
1:53:14 What happens – because we don’t have this policy, what happens?
1:53:18 And my other thought on it was I wouldn’t want to put an amount.
1:53:24 » Currently in the statute, there is a provision that authorizes
1:53:27 the board to pick up representation costs
1:53:31 for employees that are sued in the line of their duties.
1:53:36 If it’s outside the scope and line of their duties, then the
1:53:39 board has no obligation to pay for those legal costs.
1:53:42 » I’ll be honest –
1:53:43 » I’m a fan of this policy.
1:53:44 I think we should add this policy.
1:53:46 » Okay.
1:53:47 Do you want to stop for a minute, go pause it and then come back
1:53:52 and bring it back and look at –
1:53:53 because there’s a significant amount of options there?
1:53:55 » Yeah.
1:53:56 » Okay.
1:53:57 Hey, Ms. Campbell, considering – Ms. Wright wants to bring it
1:53:59 –
1:54:00 » Yeah.
1:54:01 » She wants to pause on this and possibly bring it back.
1:54:03 She wants to review it because there’s a lot of options on there.
1:54:06 I seem to agree with her.
1:54:07 And I think there’s some questions to Paul.
1:54:09 Are you okay with punting this policy to the next review when we
1:54:13 do the 7,000s to come back?
1:54:16 » Well, I – or just – I’d like for Paul to kind of weigh in
1:54:20 on, one, what we – what our practice has been
1:54:23 and what, you know, what his recommendations would be on this,
1:54:28 too.
1:54:29 And I’m thinking I have to check out you guys, so –
1:54:32 » Well, Ms. Campbell, I apologize.
1:54:34 Paul did speak to that.
1:54:36 Do you want him to speak to that again into the microphone for
1:54:38 you or are you okay with waiting to –
1:54:41 » Yeah, that’d be great.
1:54:42 » Okay.
1:54:43 » Well, when we – when I bring it back, I can check which
1:54:44 options I think would be applicable and then you guys can review
1:54:48 those.
1:54:48 » He’s mumbling over there, Ms. Campbell.
1:54:50 What he said was he basically said he’s going to bring back some
1:54:52 recommendations for the different options to us at the time –
1:54:57 » Okay.
1:54:58 » – and then justify that during the conversation if that’s
1:55:00 okay.
1:55:01 » Sounds good.
1:55:02 » All right, you guys, have a great rest of the evening.
1:55:04 » Thank you.
1:55:05 » See you.
1:55:06 » All right.
1:55:08 Okay.
1:55:09 Next up, 6510 is the next.
1:55:14 We have that policy last revised in 2019.
1:55:18 Seems that this – our policy is a little bit more robust than
1:55:23 what you see over there, okay?
1:55:26 » They –
1:55:27 » They last updated in 2002.
1:55:29 We did in 2019, ours has Roman numerals there.
1:55:33 » Oh.
1:55:34 » That’s the first time I’ve seen that.
1:55:35 » Well, that’s just – that’s our format.
1:55:37 We take all of NOLA’s and try and put Roman numerals and break
1:55:39 them into sections so it’s easier to discuss.
1:55:42 You can say Roman numeral one versus paragraph whatever.
1:55:47 » Just haven’t seen it yet.
1:55:48 » Yeah.
1:55:49 » Just looks more authoritative.
1:55:51 All right.
1:55:52 So are you guys okay with keeping what we have or do you want
1:55:54 staff to review and then bring it back?
1:55:57 Ours is updated.
1:55:59 » Yeah.
1:56:00 I think just maybe look at asking Mr. Dufresne to double check
1:56:05 and make sure that there’s nothing there that he sees.
1:56:07 » Mr. Dufresne will have – if we can ask Mr. Dufresne to
1:56:10 review 6510 for any updates and see if there’s anything he wants
1:56:15 to add.
1:56:17 All right.
1:56:18 6520, payroll deductions.
1:56:21 Oh, boy.
1:56:22 » That’s going to be his –
1:56:24 » No, that’s Ms. Lassinski.
1:56:26 » We revised this one.
1:56:27 It looks like in December.
1:56:28 » Yeah.
1:56:29 We just revised this one.
1:56:30 » Yeah.
1:56:31 Ours is more recent.
1:56:33 » Yeah.
1:56:34 So I think this one’s okay.
1:56:35 » Yep.
1:56:36 I think we’re good.
1:56:37 We don’t need any update on that one.
1:56:38 So just leave that one alone, Paul.
1:56:40 First one I think all day.
1:56:42 6521, tax sheltered annuity plans and accounts.
1:56:48 » I flagged this one because I was a little bit like what?
1:56:51 » So here’s what it is.
1:56:54 Right now we have – what is it, Dr. Rendell?
1:56:57 I’ve been on this thing for a little bit.
1:56:59 So we have a bunch of vendors.
1:57:00 » Okay.
1:57:01 » So right now, tax sheltered annuity plans and accounts.
1:57:05 So tax annuities are part of your 403(b) and 427 investment
1:57:10 plans with 457, whatever those are.
1:57:13 Some districts go out to bid, put it under one bill and say
1:57:18 which reduces the overall points that our people are charged.
1:57:23 So the good side to that is is that you have low cost for the
1:57:27 overall.
1:57:28 You’ll save probably one or two years on the back end of it.
1:57:31 Okay?
1:57:32 The bad side – and you have people that actually are part of
1:57:35 a communications plan where they go to the – they basically
1:57:38 sell their product, but at the same time they’re communicating
1:57:40 and educating the employees.
1:57:42 Our model is different, which is the same as many of the other
1:57:45 places, is that we have multiple vendors that are catered
1:57:51 throughout the year.
1:57:52 So like Valok was big for a couple of years and then all of
1:57:55 a sudden they kind of fell to the side.
1:57:57 Now a couple of the Valok guys have gone off and done other
1:57:59 ones.
1:58:00 So we have like a considerable amount of them that all charge
1:58:04 what’s known as annuities.
1:58:06 Now annuities are a higher cost for each one of the plans for
1:58:10 the 401 – the 403(b)s in the points that they charge because
1:58:14 there’s guarantees and other things.
1:58:16 There’s a reason for that.
1:58:17 Because they have a smaller amount of people than they have
1:58:19 to have leverage more amount of the investment.
1:58:21 There’s an opportunity to move to some of the other plans that
1:58:24 are not annuities, which have lower points, but these vendors
1:58:27 will not look at it, is what it is.
1:58:30 So, you know, I was in the process, just so you know, of
1:58:33 requesting all of the points based on there.
1:58:35 I did that.
1:58:36 Ms. Scipio gave me all of the points that they’re charging,
1:58:39 all of the different vendors.
1:58:41 And then I brought it to my friend who’s a 401(k) advisor
1:58:44 and he said, look, he said, unless you guys go down to one
1:58:47 vendor, you should just keep the current plans that you have.
1:58:50 If everybody’s happy, just move on.
1:58:52 So I kind of dropped it.
1:58:53 Okay.
1:58:54 But that’s what this is, just so you know.
1:58:58 So with that, do you think we need a policy or are we okay to
1:59:00 keep going where we are?
1:59:02 Well, I think if we’re currently offering it, then yeah, we keep
1:59:04 it in the policy, right?
1:59:05 The policies are identical.
1:59:06 It’s just the NEOLA update references statute.
1:59:10 That’s the only difference.
1:59:11 So you just want to add statute to it and move on?
1:59:14 Well, you just keep it the way it is.
1:59:18 Yeah.
1:59:19 Right.
1:59:20 I think Rendell’s getting a little testy over there.
1:59:22 No, no, no.
1:59:23 He’s like, man, let’s get through this.
1:59:24 Come on.
1:59:25 I got things to do.
1:59:26 We’re getting close, guys.
1:59:27 6530, reemployment assistance.
1:59:29 So yeah, we have unemployment compensation is our term.
1:59:34 Ours was updated in ‘13.
1:59:35 NEOLA’s was 2022.
1:59:37 You want to send that to staff for a review?
1:59:39 I think we need to rename it, though, because the state has
1:59:41 gone to that reemployment assistance.
1:59:43 Yeah, that’s what I’m saying.
1:59:44 Yeah.
1:59:45 If we can send it to staff, it seems like there’s been an
1:59:47 update.
1:59:49 Paul?
1:59:50 It’s just an update on the name, really, I think.
1:59:55 I think they’re the same.
1:59:56 Yeah, the same.
1:59:57 It’s just the name.
1:59:58 Right.
1:59:59 Can we change the name?
2:00:00 Is that like an administrative change?
2:00:01 A technical change?
2:00:02 Technical change.
2:00:03 I’ll check and see if I can get it in on a technical change.
2:00:05 I mean, we’re just technically changing it to what the state
2:00:07 now calls unemployment reemployment assistance.
2:00:11 Which I like it, because we want to get them reemployed,
2:00:13 not, you know, I get the idea behind it.
2:00:17 All right.
2:00:19 So the next one is 6540, which has now also been updated with
2:00:26 the new NEOLA from 2023.
2:00:31 So what I would like to do is offer this to get staff to
2:00:33 review it, since it just got updated.
2:00:36 Yeah.
2:00:37 And let staff, it’s local purchasing, let Ms. Christie
2:00:42 take a look at it, if you guys are okay with that.
2:00:46 Mm-hmm.
2:00:55 Yeah.
2:00:56 That’s fine.
2:00:57 What are you looking at?
2:00:59 There’s two diversions of this that consult an agreement.
2:01:01 Right.
2:01:02 But there’s one that just came out from the Florida
2:01:04 legislature that is the most recent update, and I was going
2:01:07 to say let’s just look at that.
2:01:09 Okay.
2:01:10 That’s cool.
2:01:12 Mr. Paul, if they could look at the most recent update from
2:01:14 July of 2023, see what –
2:01:16 That was 6440, not 6540.
2:01:19 6450.
2:01:21 6540.
2:01:22 Yeah, we’re on 6540.
2:01:23 Oh, man.
2:01:24 So –
2:01:25 Did it again.
2:01:26 I did it again.
2:01:27 I apologize.
2:01:28 So there’s not a 23 update.
2:01:29 Yep.
2:01:30 Disregard the chair for saying that.
2:01:33 All right.
2:01:34 Consulting agreements.
2:01:35 Okay.
2:01:36 I was like I’m not looking at the new updated NEOLA ones,
2:01:38 which would be so great.
2:01:39 There are no more July 23 updates.
2:01:41 Oh, good.
2:01:42 I can exit out of that box.
2:01:43 Yeah, we are done with the 23 updates.
2:01:45 Thank you.
2:01:46 Thank you for that.
2:01:53 I know we have consultants that we currently do work with.
2:01:59 There’s two versions here.
2:02:01 Personally, I like version two better just because it’s a
2:02:03 little simpler.
2:02:04 Yeah.
2:02:05 It’s not limiting –
2:02:06 I’m good.
2:02:07 – a lot of those.
2:02:08 If we’re going to put a consultant – employment of
2:02:10 consultants into policy, I think version two is a little
2:02:15 cleaning.
2:02:16 So we have like – so I do know that like Career and
2:02:19 Technical has a consultant that works with them.
2:02:21 I do know that consultants come in and work every once
2:02:23 in a while.
2:02:24 So if we can kick this one, I like version two, too,
2:02:27 to Christy and see if there’s something that she would
2:02:29 like to add.
2:02:30 And then that would go that route.
2:02:34 That’s okay.
2:02:35 All right.
2:02:36 Next up.
2:02:37 This one has to be updated.
2:02:38 6550, travel and expenses.
2:02:41 Yeah, this is the one that we already – so this was
2:02:44 updated in 2014.
2:02:46 This is a – this has been updated.
2:02:50 I know for a fact, meola 2023 is what – this has some
2:02:54 of the stuff that the state has been inside of here
2:02:57 making changes.
2:02:58 Our policy was not updated.
2:02:59 If we can send the most updated policy to staff and
2:03:02 then have staff just come back with the recommendations
2:03:04 that they have inside of here.
2:03:05 Okay.
2:03:06 That’s okay.
2:03:07 Paul, are you okay with that?
2:03:08 No.
2:03:11 Okay.
2:03:13 Oh, this is a big one.
2:03:14 Next one is 6605, crowdfunding.
2:03:19 Dun, dun, dun.
2:03:20 Yeah.
2:03:21 Look at all the statues.
2:03:22 I know that – yeah, I know because this was something
2:03:24 that we were working through.
2:03:26 I know we changed this in 2021.
2:03:28 I know ours – Paul, ours has been updated past the
2:03:32 meola one.
2:03:33 Do you feel pretty confident in our crowdfunding policy?
2:03:36 Because I know we were going around – there was one
2:03:38 person that was applying to be a crowd-bunder and I
2:03:40 learned so much about it.
2:03:41 Paul, do you feel confident with this one?
2:03:43 I’m happy with ours, but I would – I can get with Cindy
2:03:47 and see if her group who handles a lot of it with the
2:03:51 other staff that handle in procurement to see if they
2:03:54 would recommend any tweaks to like issues.
2:03:57 Yeah.
2:03:58 Do we want to do these?
2:03:59 I know I’ve had discussions around perhaps making it
2:04:02 once a year.
2:04:03 We open the application window for new people because
2:04:06 they’re very time-consuming.
2:04:08 They’re not only time-consuming, but they’re
2:04:10 very pushy.
2:04:12 Yeah.
2:04:13 When we get new ones, yeah, in the middle of stuff.
2:04:15 Because they want to get in and do business, right?
2:04:16 Yeah.
2:04:17 And they just – and poor Paul is like – I remember
2:04:19 that one was like 26 emails back and forth.
2:04:21 Oh, my gosh.
2:04:22 So, yeah.
2:04:23 So, anything you guys want to do, that’s great.
2:04:25 I think it’s hilarious that we have more statute
2:04:27 listed than our policy is in length, it looks like,
2:04:29 on this one, so.
2:04:30 It looks like this was heavily researched in 2021.
2:04:33 Yep.
2:04:34 All right, next one is – so, if you’re okay with
2:04:36 that direction, Paul, that you actually made the
2:04:38 recommendation for, so that’s good.
2:04:39 Next one is 6610, if you can.
2:04:42 Neola updated this in 2018.
2:04:48 We updated ours in 2010.
2:04:50 If you can have staff review that one, that would
2:04:52 be my recommendation and come back.
2:04:54 Are you okay with that?
2:04:55 Yeah.
2:04:56 Okay.
2:04:57 Feel good about that, Paul?
2:04:59 Yeah.
2:05:00 All right.
2:05:01 Next one is petty cash funds.
2:05:04 Again, 6620, we don’t have that.
2:05:11 Not a big fan of petty cash, but if we do have it,
2:05:13 maybe ask staff if they think that they need it,
2:05:15 but I’m okay not having it.
2:05:17 Yeah, I don’t – I’m not a big fan of petty cash
2:05:19 either, honestly.
2:05:20 Not when you have P cards and stuff like that
2:05:21 that you can use.
2:05:23 I know that – well, yeah, yeah.
2:05:26 Okay.
2:05:28 Next one is a change fund, 6621.
2:05:32 We do not have that one.
2:05:34 Recognize a change fund in day-to-day operations
2:05:36 for the school district, establish a change fund
2:05:38 with designated building cashier who would be
2:05:40 responsible.
2:05:41 I don’t –
2:05:42 No, I don’t like this one.
2:05:44 Mr. Trent, we good?
2:05:46 If I say something inappropriate, just holler
2:05:47 and say no, I disagree.
2:05:49 Okay.
2:05:50 So I think we’re going to pass on this one,
2:05:51 6621, we’re not going to use.
2:05:53 6625, we would not use that.
2:05:55 6625 is petty cash accounts again.
2:05:58 That’s another area if you can have staff review
2:06:00 for the petty cash in this of it.
2:06:03 You’re okay with that?
2:06:05 Uh-huh.
2:06:06 Okay.
2:06:08 6661 is the next one up, instructional materials
2:06:11 allocation.
2:06:14 We need this one.
2:06:15 Yeah, there’s three Florida statutes
2:06:16 that are inside there.
2:06:17 It was updated last year.
2:06:18 I think that we need this one, Paul,
2:06:20 if you can send it to staff to just have them reviewed
2:06:22 to make sure that there’s any changes
2:06:24 they might want to make up to that,
2:06:25 but I do think we need that.
2:06:26 Are you okay with that?
2:06:28 All right, moving on.
2:06:29 Trust and agency fund.
2:06:32 We do not have this currently.
2:06:35 It was updated in 2002.
2:06:38 Is this something that we need though,
2:06:39 because I know that there’s been,
2:06:41 well, I guess no, not really,
2:06:43 because we’re not the administration of scholarships.
2:06:46 We had a situation that happened last school year
2:06:48 with a scholarship that wasn’t awarded
2:06:51 and I vaguely remember it.
2:06:54 I know Dr. Sullivan was working.
2:06:56 I think the organization may be closed.
2:06:58 I don’t know or something funky.
2:07:04 I don’t know.
2:07:05 Is this something that we need?
2:07:06 Because I’m a student that gets a scholarship,
2:07:08 those funds aren’t coming to us.
2:07:09 It’s going through whatever organization.
2:07:10 Correct.
2:07:11 I don’t know of us operating a trust and agency fund.
2:07:15 Yeah.
2:07:16 It doesn’t sound like I don’t really want to do any of that.
2:07:18 No, I just want to stay out of it.
2:07:20 You guys are okay.
2:07:21 We’ll move on.
2:07:22 We do not need 6670.
2:07:24 The next one up is 6680 recognition.
2:07:27 It is not in Neola.
2:07:28 It’s a Brevard policy.
2:07:29 I know.
2:07:30 I was actually really happy when I saw this.
2:07:31 I mean, this is good though,
2:07:32 because it gives us the ability from a board’s perspective
2:07:34 to be able to recognize certain administrators
2:07:36 or things that are going on, staff, students, citizens.
2:07:39 Pins, Platts.
2:07:40 Yeah.
2:07:41 We can get token awards.
2:07:42 Other amenities.
2:07:44 I really liked this policy personally,
2:07:46 so I was like, hey, if this is something
2:07:47 that we’re able to use,
2:07:48 I didn’t realize it until I was going to the policy book.
2:07:51 I like this.
2:07:52 I don’t want to touch it.
2:07:53 It’s something I will be utilizing.
2:07:54 I’m ready to get some Platts made for some people.
2:07:56 Let’s go.
2:07:58 And just so you guys know, Dr. Mullins
2:08:00 used to have these pins.
2:08:01 He ordered a bunch of them.
2:08:02 I have a bag of them.
2:08:03 Yeah.
2:08:04 Well, you got some.
2:08:05 Okay.
2:08:06 Would you like some?
2:08:07 No, I’ve got them.
2:08:08 I have a bunch of them.
2:08:09 I do.
2:08:10 Okay.
2:08:11 6680.
2:08:12 Next up, 6685 is what’s inside of the funding for promotion,
2:08:17 public relations, and hospitality.
2:08:20 Sounds like just me.
2:08:22 2017.
2:08:23 Board prohibits the expenditure for any purchase
2:08:25 that are not directly related to students’ expenditures
2:08:28 and board funds.
2:08:30 So this is kind of where this dives into
2:08:32 is our funding coming from PIE and some of the other stuff,
2:08:36 I think is where this is kind of coming into.
2:08:42 So if you see derived from auxiliary enterprises
2:08:44 and undersigned gifts up to the limit of the state board
2:08:47 regarding the purpose of promotion, all that stuff.
2:08:49 So this speaks to that.
2:08:52 If it would be okay with you guys,
2:08:57 I’d like to punt on this because I’m going to bring forward
2:08:59 some of the B2K12 stuff and just kind of get through it.
2:09:02 There’s a couple of principles that have shown some concern
2:09:04 and I just want to get that thing back on the rails.
2:09:06 Yeah.
2:09:07 So if you guys are okay with punting this thing.
2:09:08 I’m okay with punting it.
2:09:09 I mean, I think this is probably a good policy, though,
2:09:11 to look at.
2:09:12 I think we definitely are interested in this,
2:09:14 but we’re going to have some discussion wrapped around
2:09:16 some of the other things.
2:09:17 So Paul, if you can just pause on this one.
2:09:19 Thank you.
2:09:21 All right.
2:09:23 6700 Fair Labor Relations Standards Act.
2:09:29 All right.
2:09:30 It says Audit Committee.
2:09:34 I don’t think these are the same.
2:09:36 So is there another place that the Audit Committee sits?
2:09:39 Yeah.
2:09:40 Well, it’s just External Financial Audits.
2:09:41 Internal Audit Office.
2:09:43 It’s on the next policy.
2:09:44 It’s Neil of 6830 is where their audit stuff comes in.
2:09:49 So this–
2:09:50 So when I read this, there’s not only legal.
2:09:52 There’s Florida statutes.
2:09:53 There’s articles in the state constitution.
2:09:55 What I would recommend is that we take 6700,
2:10:02 which seems to be one of the later ones,
2:10:05 and then add this one as the Fair Relations Standard Act.
2:10:11 I think a lot of this is defined in our contract with our–
2:10:15 is that correct?
2:10:16 I mean, with the union?
2:10:18 When you look at this and it starts talking about our work
2:10:20 week, how we define it, these are all things
2:10:22 that are established and set out in contracts.
2:10:25 So do we need to have–
2:10:26 A lot of it would be applicable in the contract.
2:10:28 A lot of this, though, is federal.
2:10:30 Like the FLSA is the Federal Act and incorporated
2:10:32 in the state statute.
2:10:34 So when they’re saying define work week,
2:10:35 that’s if we get an EEOC complaint alleging
2:10:39 that we fail to pay overtime.
2:10:41 They’re going to look at what the–
2:10:42 they want to know what your policies are
2:10:44 on the defined work week for what positions.
2:10:46 OK.
2:10:47 They may be in job descriptions.
2:10:48 This position’s Monday to Friday from 8 to 5,
2:10:51 whatever the job description.
2:10:53 But I’m not positive on that.
2:10:54 So then would your advice be to go ahead and–
2:10:58 I can look at what we have elsewhere
2:11:00 and then bring back a recommendation.
2:11:02 OK.
2:11:03 Because this kind of–
2:11:04 this has Florida statutory law, constitutions,
2:11:06 all that kind of stuff.
2:11:07 Yeah.
2:11:08 It might need to be added.
2:11:09 Sounds pretty important.
2:11:10 Yeah.
2:11:11 All right.
2:11:12 So clarification to 6700 Audit Committee,
2:11:18 that is similar to the NEOLA 6830.
2:11:22 And 35, yeah.
2:11:24 So what I said was if 6700, send it to Paul for review,
2:11:30 move 6700 Audit Committee to either 6830 or 6840.
2:11:35 Renumber it.
2:11:36 Right.
2:11:37 Renumber it.
2:11:38 And then what I’m about to do is just ask staff
2:11:40 to look at those two along with 6700, the old policy,
2:11:44 and review them for what moving forward.
2:11:47 OK.
2:11:48 Does that make sense, Dr.?
2:11:49 Yeah.
2:11:50 No.
2:11:53 All right.
2:11:55 Three more to go.
2:11:56 You guys holding up real quick?
2:11:57 I know.
2:11:58 You’re like, OK, we’re going to get to the end.
2:11:59 Let’s go through them quick.
2:12:00 All right.
2:12:01 The Audit Committee, those policies, obviously,
2:12:04 we’re going to ask the staff to look at,
2:12:05 because this is a far more extensive policy
2:12:08 than what we have in place right now.
2:12:10 Right.
2:12:11 So if you look at it, it moves from 6700 to 6830, right?
2:12:16 And 6835, sorry.
2:12:18 And then you have 6840, 6840.
2:12:20 Well, then if you turn to ours, which is the next one,
2:12:22 6705, Charter of Internal Audit.
2:12:25 Right.
2:12:26 And then that’s the last policy we have.
2:12:28 And then there’s all of these.
2:12:29 I think, Paul, if you can take our original 6700
2:12:33 along with 6705, look at the updated policies
2:12:37 from 6830, 6835, and then the two versions for 6840
2:12:42 and figure out what that looks like and bring it back to you.
2:12:45 Does that make sense to you?
2:12:46 Yeah.
2:12:47 Because it’s just too much.
2:12:48 There’s a lot there that needs to be done.
2:12:50 Yep.
2:12:54 You guys OK?
2:12:55 Mm-hmm.
2:12:57 That’s the end of it.
2:13:01 You guys have anything else in the 6000s
2:13:03 that you would like to bring up?
2:13:05 No.
2:13:07 You got it done.
2:13:09 I did have a couple of things that I wanted to just give you
2:13:12 guys a heads up on.
2:13:15 We have that legislative review I put on the agenda.
2:13:18 Right.
2:13:19 Just so that you guys could be prepared.
2:13:22 The way that I put it on there was that September 9th,
2:13:26 we would kind of discuss it and have staff bring forward
2:13:28 any recommendations that they may need.
2:13:30 OK.
2:13:31 And then on September, I think it’s 16th, the next meeting,
2:13:34 we would actually come together and then
2:13:36 make a formal legislative priority list and get it out.
2:13:39 OK.
2:13:40 I will grab the Florida School Board Association legislative
2:13:44 if there is one.
2:13:46 Katie sits on the advocacy committee right now.
2:13:49 They may have some ideas.
2:13:51 The big thing that I’m going to focus on myself this year
2:13:53 is going to be D-Reg.
2:13:55 Because I know from my perspective
2:13:58 and what I went through and what the regulations and some
2:14:01 of the paperwork that we have is out of control.
2:14:03 So that’s where I’m going to focus mine.
2:14:05 But I think if you guys can bring back some ideas
2:14:07 at the next session, talk to your friends,
2:14:09 do that kind of stuff.
2:14:10 Is that OK, Mr. Trent?
2:14:12 And then Mr. Rendell, I think one of the things
2:14:14 that I was looking at was we kind of bounced around
2:14:18 with those contract renewals coming back before the board.
2:14:23 And I don’t feel like we had a strong enough discussion
2:14:26 over that.
2:14:27 So what we had mentioned before was if a contract has
2:14:30 a three-year contract with two one-year extensions,
2:14:33 those two one-year extensions routinely have not
2:14:36 been coming before the board.
2:14:38 So they just continue those contracts.
2:14:40 I feel that we as a school board should see that.
2:14:43 But I don’t know if I had that authority given
2:14:47 to tell the superintendent.
2:14:50 Is that– you know what I mean?
2:14:52 So that along with the direction from the $50,000
2:14:56 that the superintendent and others, deputy superintendents
2:14:59 and stuff like that, or assistant superintendent
2:15:01 may spend money on, should just come
2:15:03 before as an informational item on the board
2:15:05 so that we can keep an eye on it.
2:15:06 That’s all.
2:15:07 Informational items, yeah.
2:15:08 Does that make sense?
2:15:09 I think you should set a minimum amount because I don’t–
2:15:12 Dr. Rendell doesn’t need to come and tell us every–
2:15:14 $300 of these things.
2:15:15 Right, exactly.
2:15:16 So that’s what I’m saying.
2:15:17 I mean, that’s a huge gap from $0 to $50,000.
2:15:19 So I feel like there should probably be, hey,
2:15:21 if there’s something that you have–
2:15:23 he’s stroking checks for $45,000 over and over again.
2:15:26 I know we don’t do checks.
2:15:27 I don’t think– like Mullins would always
2:15:29 say that he never did it.
2:15:31 The thing is, Dr. Rendell had mentioned
2:15:32 he had something in Indian River County that he did.
2:15:35 What was the policy there?
2:15:36 Can I ask that?
2:15:37 Every quarter, we just had an agenda item
2:15:43 that listed anything that was purchased or contracts
2:15:47 that were executed under the superintendent’s spending
2:15:50 authority.
2:15:51 OK.
2:15:52 And keep in mind, again, that’s the superintendent’s spending
2:15:55 authority.
2:15:56 It’s not like the superintendent has like a fund.
2:15:58 Right.
2:15:59 But it’s contracts or anything that’s budgeted for,
2:16:01 but under $50,000, we don’t have to bring
2:16:04 to the board for approval.
2:16:06 But every quarter, there was just like a list of those
2:16:08 so that the public could see that.
2:16:10 The board members could see that.
2:16:12 We could look at trying to put that together.
2:16:14 Yeah, I think that’s a good idea.
2:16:15 Honestly, I think it just creates transparency, too.
2:16:17 Yeah, I mean, it’s a bigger district,
2:16:18 so that’s a bigger lift.
2:16:20 OK.
2:16:21 But it was something we did there.
2:16:23 And like you said, it provides a little transparency.
2:16:26 Yeah.
2:16:27 And a quarterly basis, I feel comfortable with that.
2:16:29 I think that’s good.
2:16:30 Because again, with it being a bigger district,
2:16:32 I’m sure there’s going to be quite a bit of work that
2:16:34 goes into that.
2:16:35 Yeah.
2:16:36 And then also, not only the superintendent,
2:16:39 but doesn’t the cabinet have up to a certain amount
2:16:42 that they can authorize without having it come before the board?
2:16:46 Those would still all fall under that same list.
2:16:49 OK.
2:16:50 I would say board, superintendent, and cabinet.
2:16:52 When you say superintendent, authority, superintendent,
2:16:54 or designee, so anything under $50,000 coming out of ESF
2:16:59 would be on that list.
2:17:00 Got it.
2:17:01 OK.
2:17:02 And then as far as–
2:17:03 I think I had spoken to Ms. Rodriguez about the contract
2:17:06 piece, but I’m not sure if I had the board’s authority.
2:17:10 Paul, if I would like to move on having those contracts that
2:17:14 are the contract renewals on the one-year extensions
2:17:17 come before the board for approval,
2:17:19 is that something that I have to do at a board meeting
2:17:21 to set that direction?
2:17:22 We’re not really voting on anything.
2:17:23 Or could I get that here?
2:17:24 Or do I need to wait?
2:17:26 What do you mean for renewals?
2:17:28 I would like to make a recommendation so
2:17:30 that the contract renewals that in the past
2:17:32 have not been coming before us for the contract–
2:17:35 have the three-year, one-year, and one-year contract
2:17:38 extensions.
2:17:39 I’d like to have those contract extensions come
2:17:41 before the board.
2:17:42 So I was going to make that recommendation,
2:17:43 but Ms. Campbell and Ms. Jenkins are not here.
2:17:45 So would it be appropriate to just make that recommendation
2:17:47 and see what Ms. Rodriguez brings back?
2:17:49 Or do you want me to bring it back
2:17:50 at the next school board meeting to get recommendation
2:17:52 from the whole board?
2:17:54 I mean, either way would be fine.
2:17:57 I’m just trying to think through–
2:17:58 I’d probably have to review the contracts
2:18:00 to see what the language is in them
2:18:02 because it might require an addendum
2:18:04 if it’s overly specific.
2:18:07 Yeah, I think we as a school–
2:18:09 so like, say, contract for Services X
2:18:14 has a three-year, and a one-year, and a one-year.
2:18:16 What was happening was is you had the three-year,
2:18:19 and then it never came back before the board,
2:18:22 and there were some that had just continued to go
2:18:25 on one-year extensions, and they never came back
2:18:27 for procurement.
2:18:28 And we didn’t know about it because it was just
2:18:30 being extended.
2:18:31 So the idea would be that if we knew about it coming back,
2:18:34 along with our annual review that we have on some of those
2:18:37 that we’re looking at, I think it could be part
2:18:39 of the package.
2:18:40 But I didn’t want to do it unless–
2:18:42 I mean, we have a majority here, but I didn’t want
2:18:44 to say that unless–
2:18:46 You can give direction during a workshop
2:18:49 that we don’t normally vote on things, you know what I mean?
2:18:51 Right, yeah.
2:18:52 I’ll know that it requires a vote to just ask
2:18:54 the superintendent to make sure those come back
2:18:56 before the board.
2:18:57 I think it would be part of the policy.
2:18:59 I don’t hate that.
2:19:00 I don’t dislike it, and I think, honestly,
2:19:02 when we look at doing the annual review of these contracts,
2:19:05 some of them I know this will be caught on that end as well.
2:19:09 So I don’t think it’s a bad idea, honestly.
2:19:12 And I’m not talking about the $10,000 custodian.
2:19:16 Right, right, right.
2:19:17 There would be a limit, but OK.
2:19:19 All right, thank you.
2:19:20 All right.
2:19:21 Does anybody else have anything else to say?
2:19:22 Dr. Rendell, you got anything?
2:19:23 I do.
2:19:24 I need board direction on a couple of things.
2:19:26 I mean, we’re not voting, but kind of need
2:19:28 some board direction.
2:19:29 So there is a hurricane out in the Gulf.
2:19:33 Right now, we do not plan on closing school tomorrow.
2:19:36 We’ll make a final decision this afternoon.
2:19:38 But the last storm tracks that we saw,
2:19:42 it looked like we’re far enough away
2:19:44 that we won’t have any dangerous winds or anything like that.
2:19:48 But I do kind of need board direction.
2:19:50 If we were to close school, I need some kind of direction
2:19:55 on make-up date possibilities.
2:19:58 The board may be aware that the first listed make-up
2:20:02 days on our calendar occur during the Thanksgiving holiday.
2:20:08 So if we were out any extended period of time, even one day
2:20:12 really, we would probably have to make up that day.
2:20:16 And so I kind of need some board direction
2:20:18 on whether you would want us to just go ahead
2:20:20 and take those Thanksgiving days,
2:20:23 or stay away from those Thanksgiving days
2:20:26 and come up with other options for making up the day.
2:20:30 Because I kind of want some direction from the board
2:20:32 so that if we were to close, either for this hurricane
2:20:35 or another one, whether we just say, hey,
2:20:39 we’ve got these on the calendar.
2:20:40 They’re make-up days.
2:20:41 It’s listed on the calendar.
2:20:42 We’ll go with those.
2:20:43 Or if you’d rather look at a different option
2:20:46 like we did exercise last year, pushing into second semester
2:20:50 or removing some early release days or things like that.
2:20:55 So can I ask a quick question just before we speak to that?
2:20:59 I think my– I think the trigger is that we can’t cross
2:21:04 the causeways if the wind gets above a certain amount, right?
2:21:07 What was the–
2:21:08 Correct.
2:21:09 It’s sustained winds of 35 miles an hour.
2:21:11 OK.
2:21:12 And so what would happen if we today said,
2:21:15 we do not want to close schools, right?
2:21:17 And then tomorrow morning, those sustained winds pick up.
2:21:20 We would just make an announcement immediately?
2:21:23 Yeah, we would have to make the decision this afternoon.
2:21:25 Right.
2:21:26 We can’t wait till tomorrow.
2:21:27 I understand that.
2:21:29 And then, just so you guys know, what we did before was
2:21:32 you try to catch it like when they come back.
2:21:34 So you extend the semester into past Christmas
2:21:37 and then they say, OK, there’s the games that they play.
2:21:40 Plus there were some years where we actually had more minutes
2:21:43 and we were able to reduce it that way, too.
2:21:46 Is there an option that in the event
2:21:48 that we were able to reduce– oh, that’s through contract.
2:21:53 I was going to say, you could also
2:21:55 reduce the amount of early release Fridays.
2:21:59 Correct, so in simple terms, the easiest solution
2:22:06 to make up days to use the days identified in the calendar.
2:22:10 The calendar has already been voted on
2:22:12 and approved by the board.
2:22:15 Those are days, like say, for example, if you close school,
2:22:18 your bus drivers don’t drive and those types of things.
2:22:21 So we typically pay our employees
2:22:24 even when we close for a hurricane,
2:22:26 even if they are hourly and they don’t work.
2:22:28 But then if you come back and do a make-up day
2:22:30 that’s an additional day, then you pay them again.
2:22:33 So you pay them twice, which is fine.
2:22:34 We do that.
2:22:35 We have a budget for that.
2:22:38 The biggest thing to consider with any kind of make-up day
2:22:42 policy is everybody always thinks it’s about days.
2:22:46 We have 180 school days, and so we have to have 180 days.
2:22:49 And it’s not days at all.
2:22:50 It’s instructional minutes.
2:22:53 And we’re in a kind of a bind more so
2:22:55 than some other districts because our instructional
2:22:58 minutes are limited.
2:22:59 And we have those early release days every Friday.
2:23:03 So that’s 75 minutes of instructional time
2:23:05 that we lose every Friday that other districts don’t.
2:23:08 So oftentimes when we’re calculating whether we even
2:23:12 need to make up a lost day for a hurricane,
2:23:15 it comes down to the minutes.
2:23:17 And seriously, the minute.
2:23:18 It comes down to the calculation of a minute
2:23:20 and instructional time.
2:23:22 So we’re in a delicate situation where if we miss too many days,
2:23:27 we can’t absorb those days because we
2:23:30 don’t have the instructional minutes
2:23:31 to meet statutory requirement to issue credit.
2:23:34 And so more than likely, for example,
2:23:38 O’Gally High School already had to close one day, opening day.
2:23:42 So calculating their instructional minutes,
2:23:44 it’s pretty tight right now for them
2:23:46 to meet the instructional minute requirements
2:23:48 for first semester.
2:23:50 So again, if we were to close for a hurricane,
2:23:54 we definitely would probably have to make up the day.
2:23:56 We definitely would have to make up the day,
2:23:58 especially for O’Gally.
2:23:59 So we can’t really absorb a hurricane
2:24:01 make up day in our calendar.
2:24:03 Some other districts, for example,
2:24:06 I believe last year Indian River was out for several days
2:24:09 and they did not have to make up any hurricane days
2:24:12 because they had enough minutes in their instructional calendar
2:24:15 still in their days of school.
2:24:18 We don’t really have that option because we are so tight
2:24:21 on instructional minutes.
2:24:23 So all I’m asking for today is direction from the board
2:24:29 if we do close for a hurricane or any other natural disaster,
2:24:34 do we just pluck the days right out of Thanksgiving
2:24:37 because those are the ones on the calendar,
2:24:39 or do we look at can we extend first semester
2:24:44 into second semester for a day, steal some of that time,
2:24:47 from second semester.
2:24:49 Do we look at eliminating some early release days
2:24:53 that would be negotiated with the union,
2:24:55 that kind of thing, which we did last year,
2:24:57 you know, that kind of thing.
2:24:58 So just kind of direction from the board,
2:25:00 if we were to close, is it, hey, just take those days
2:25:05 on the calendar or be creative and start looking at other ways
2:25:10 to make up the minutes.
2:25:12 So I’m just checking, I apologize,
2:25:15 but I’m just checking the national weather forecast
2:25:17 for the hurricane, and it’s showing that Wednesday 2 a.m.
2:25:21 is the line where we would see a little bit,
2:25:23 and then it’s Wednesday 8 a.m.,
2:25:25 it’ll be almost centered out over Florida.
2:25:28 So I’m okay.
2:25:31 First off, I think we need to make a decision
2:25:33 on giving direction as to whether we’re going to try
2:25:35 to stay open or not.
2:25:36 I don’t think we get to decide that.
2:25:38 No, we just give him, you asked for direction?
2:25:40 No, no, no.
2:25:41 Not on whether to stay open or not.
2:25:42 Yeah, we don’t get to decide that.
2:25:43 So we’re giving direction on where he’s,
2:25:45 if we should close, where is he pulling those days from?
2:25:47 Well, you don’t want us to give you any, okay, all right.
2:25:50 I’ll take all the input I can get.
2:25:52 I would push.
2:25:55 My recommendation would be to hold Thanksgiving harmless
2:25:59 and to push into the next area.
2:26:02 You can play around a lot there.
2:26:03 Yeah, my recommendation would be the same.
2:26:05 Be creative.
2:26:06 I hate that we are so tied with the minutes.
2:26:09 So if there’s anything we can do there on talking,
2:26:12 I know that part of that is negotiating.
2:26:14 We have to do.
2:26:15 So be creative.
2:26:16 But yeah, I would protect Thanksgiving.
2:26:18 That’s a really great time for a lot of families.
2:26:20 And I know a lot of our students are absent that time anyway.
2:26:22 So this is–
2:26:23 Yeah, I think oftentimes if you do
2:26:25 have to schedule make-up days, you know that in all likelihood
2:26:32 if you schedule them on a holiday, even a Monday holiday
2:26:36 or not a Monday holiday, but a Monday teacher work day
2:26:39 or something where students weren’t planning
2:26:41 on being there, you don’t have strong attendance
2:26:44 on those days.
2:26:45 Right.
2:26:46 So you’re always looking for sound instructional days.
2:26:50 And that’s the thing.
2:26:51 Not to belabor the point, but if we did not
2:26:55 have early release days every Friday,
2:26:58 we would not really be worried about make-up days
2:27:01 right now for one day of a hurricane
2:27:03 because we would easily have the instructional minutes
2:27:06 available to make up that time.
2:27:08 So because of the minutes that we lose every Friday,
2:27:12 that’s why we’re in kind of a bind.
2:27:14 And so we’ll sit down and look at the math
2:27:17 and see if we need to push into second semester or not.
2:27:23 And if we don’t close, then we don’t have to worry about it.
2:27:26 But I just wanted to make sure what
2:27:28 the direction of the board was to protect Thanksgiving.
2:27:30 That’s all I needed to know.
2:27:32 Yeah.
2:27:33 Yes.
2:27:34 And I guess you don’t want us to give you any direction.
2:27:36 He wanted to make a decision today.
2:27:38 I was like, I’ll tell you.
2:27:40 I enjoy the kids staying in school.
2:27:42 But you have to make a tough decision.
2:27:44 So you make that, and I’ll support you in any way you do.
2:27:47 Well, we should make that decision early this afternoon.
2:27:49 Yep.
2:27:50 All right.
2:27:52 You guys good?
2:27:53 I think we’re good.
2:27:54 Gene has something to say.
2:27:55 He turned on his mic.
2:27:56 Oh, I turned it off.
2:27:57 Did you have it on?
2:27:58 You were like, yeah.
2:27:59 He got up there.
2:28:00 He was like, put his hands together.
2:28:01 I thought, man, here we go.
2:28:02 That’s all I have.
2:28:03 Go ahead.
2:28:04 No, no.
2:28:05 I don’t have anything else.
2:28:06 Dr. Rendan, thank you so much.
2:28:07 Mr. Paul, thank you so much.
2:28:09 Thank you, staff, for everything.
2:28:11 I think we’re good.
2:28:12 With that, adjourn the meeting.
2:28:14 All right.
2:28:35 [music playing]