Updates on the Fight for Quality Public Education in Brevard County, FL
0:00 [ Inaudible ]
0:14 » Ladies and gentlemen, today’s work session will begin in 30
0:17 seconds.
0:19 [ Music ]
0:45 [ Inaudible ]
0:47 » Good morning. The September 22nd workshop session is now in
0:51 order. Paul, roll call, please.
0:54 » Mr. Susan.
0:55 » Here.
0:55 » Ms. Wright.
0:56 » Here.
0:56 » Mr. Trent.
0:57 » Here.
0:57 » Mr. Thomas.
0:58 » Here.
0:59 » Ms. Campbell.
0:59 » Here.
1:00 » Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
1:05 » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of
1:08 America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation,
1:13 under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
1:17 » Dr. Rendell, can you speak to the board about the items on
1:21 the agenda for today?
1:26 » Thank you, Mr. Chair. On today’s agenda, we have two topics
1:28 for discussion. The first is public policy discussion– public
1:32 speaking policy discussion.
1:35 And then the second topic for discussion is the contract terms
1:38 follow up from the offsite.
1:41 » All right. Hearing that we have the public speaking policy
1:44 discussion, so this is what I was thinking and you guys can tell
1:48 me. I was going to invite Mr. Thomas who proposed the
1:51 opportunity to open up and then we can have our formal
1:53 discussions. Seems like a lot of people have a lot of different
1:56 ideas on what to do. We hear all of that and then we try to work
1:59 through that. So with that, Mr. Thomas, if you could.
2:04 » Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I appreciate the
2:08 board’s willingness to discuss the issue. We all were
2:11 responsible for the policy that we currently adopted, myself
2:16 included.
2:18 I haven’t been happy with the way that it’s gone on, especially
2:22 some of the conflict between trying to determine the agenda and
2:26 non-agenda dispute. My proposal which I’m going to actually
2:30 revise a little bit after reading Mr. Gibbs’ memo, getting some
2:35 additional community input, seeing what other school boards do.
2:40 I kind of reevaluated a little bit and I would like to simplify
2:44 what I’m proposing to you guys and hopefully you guys find it
2:48 acceptable, but if not, I’m sure we’ll have some other good
2:52 ideas.
2:53 First of all, I would like to clarify though, my memo in no way
2:57 meant to infer that anybody on this board had any ill intention
3:02 on our previous policy adoption.
3:06 Like I said, I was responsible for it as much as anybody else on
3:10 this board. So that being said though, I think we need to take
3:14 steps to correct it.
3:16 And that being, I’d like to propose three main areas. First of
3:21 all, I’d like to move non-agenda comments to the beginning of
3:24 the meeting before the consent agenda.
3:26 That way the citizens don’t have to wait until the end of the
3:29 meeting to be heard. I’d like to revise the time limits. I know
3:33 there were some legitimate points raised by Mr. Gibbs in his
3:37 memo.
3:38 And I want to take those into consideration because we certainly
3:41 need to be mindful of making sure that our meetings are done
3:44 efficiently.
3:46 So I’m proposing that if we have 15 or fewer speakers for non-agenda
3:50 or agenda, and these would apply to both of these areas, that if
3:53 we have 15 or fewer speakers, they get three minutes to speak
3:57 just like they do now.
3:59 In larger topics where we have numerous people, 16 or more, I
4:03 would suggest that each speaker gets two minutes.
4:07 And the same, as I said, the same rule would apply for both
4:11 agenda and non-agenda comments. And that way everyone who
4:14 properly signs up gets to be heard.
4:17 And then last, I’m proposing that both agenda and non-agenda
4:21 items be live streamed and archived. And that same broadcast
4:25 dinner be for everything and everyone.
4:29 In regards to Mrs. Rice’s proposal, I certainly appreciate your
4:33 thoughts on the community conversation. I would like to do that
4:38 as a supplemental to these additional public comments, not
4:41 necessarily in place of.
4:43 I think it’s a great idea. I think we’ve had people come in and
4:45 ask for town halls. Having additional ideas where we don’t have
4:49 a formal agenda and we can sit down and just talk to the
4:52 community, I think that’s phenomenal.
4:53 Great idea on your part. I just would like to do it in addition
4:57 to instead of in place of. And those are kind of my initial
5:02 proposals.
5:03 Okay. All right. Who wants to go next?
5:08 I’ll go next. Thank you. So, John, I actually agree with you
5:12 that we have to revise what we’ve currently been doing because
5:15 it’s not working.
5:17 And I think when we recognize that it’s not working, we have a
5:19 responsibility to acknowledge that.
5:21 Once, you know, when this originally started, there was all this
5:24 fear over, hey, we didn’t want people to come before the board
5:27 and throw out students’ names or teachers’ names or make
5:30 allegations and things we were trying to control.
5:33 I felt like that we were kind of guided towards, hey, we don’t
5:35 want that to happen, so let’s make a policy that separates those.
5:39 But it’s not our job to control what the public says, right? So
5:43 the public can get up here and say whatever crazy thing they
5:45 want to say or they can give us great advice or news or things,
5:47 right?
5:48 Like they can do that. That’s their right to do so. You know, I’m
5:52 not afraid of public comment in any way. I’m not afraid of it
5:55 being televised in any way either.
5:57 I do – I’ve heard from multiple people on both sides of the
6:00 aisle that they don’t like the non-televised portion of this.
6:04 My recommendation, the reason behind my recommendation was
6:07 trying to focus on getting the board meeting back to being a
6:10 board business meeting, which absolutely it does include public
6:13 participation, right?
6:15 Like that is the board’s business – you’ve said it. The board’s
6:17 business – I think you put it on the Internet. I saw it. The
6:19 board’s business is public business.
6:20 I agree with that. I absolutely agree with that. But what I’ve
6:22 noticed recently is that there’s a lot of questions that are
6:26 getting asked.
6:28 And I’m like, okay, so we’re not doing a good job explaining
6:30 this because they’re coming up and asking questions and public
6:32 comment isn’t a back and forth.
6:34 Like we’re not really supposed to respond. It’s them to make us
6:37 aware of something and then sometimes we have to address it like
6:40 we did today, much like we did today with an agenda item.
6:43 Which is why I thought, okay, if we moved public comment to
6:46 agenda items only, which is board business, but I’ve also heard
6:49 from people and I understand and respect that.
6:52 Like, hey, you know, sometimes things come up on the agenda that
6:55 I need to talk about. You know, it’s really – we don’t want to
6:59 limit the public’s ability to participate and I don’t want to
7:02 limit the public’s ability to participate in school board
7:05 meetings.
7:06 So I guess I’m not opposed to your idea of this 15 or fewer
7:12 three minutes. I don’t – you know, I think going back to what
7:15 we had before with the agenda and non-agenda, I’m not as scared
7:19 of doing that either.
7:21 I mean, in doing that, televising that prior to, I believe that
7:24 all public comments really should be streamed at this point.
7:28 They need to be recorded.
7:29 There’s just been too many things that have come up and there’s
7:31 been times where I’m not even able to defend my position on
7:33 something because there’s not a recording.
7:35 So I’m like, hey, I said this and they’re like, well, there’s no
7:37 recording of it. Well, that’s not good either.
7:40 So, you know, I don’t disagree with where you’re at, John, with
7:43 the 15 minutes or fewer for three minutes is what you’re saying,
7:48 16 minutes – or 16 people, sorry, or more.
7:51 You want to go two minutes and then record them all and make
7:53 them agenda and non-agenda just together? Is that what – I mean,
7:56 do they even need to identify?
7:58 I mean, I think for the purposes if we were to – I originally
8:01 thought maybe just combining – removing whether it’s agenda or
8:05 non-agenda.
8:06 But that would actually reduce the citizen’s chance to speak
8:08 from six minutes, which it currently is, to three minutes
8:12 because they would just be speaking once versus having the
8:13 opportunity to speak twice.
8:15 So my goal is not to minimize it. You know, my goal is to
8:17 maximize the opportunity that they have for participation. That
8:21 was my whole intent.
8:23 So your suggestion is to have agenda and non-agenda but allow
8:26 three minutes for each one of those. Is that correct?
8:30 That’s what we currently have, yes.
8:31 Right, right, like what we currently have, but we have the ones
8:33 that are non-televised. So, okay. And so question on how that
8:36 would work for just – I mean –
8:38 Back to back?
8:39 Yeah, that’s I guess the logistics and how it flows in the
8:47 meeting. I’m just trying to understand that. So if – would you
8:54 envision them doing all the agenda items first and then coming
8:54 back and doing non-agenda or would they stand up there for six
8:54 minutes and say I’m doing agenda first and then non-agenda? I’m
8:55 just trying to see like what your thoughts are.
8:57 I mean, that part of it we can discuss what you think would work
9:00 best. I think that probably non-agenda first and then agenda as
9:03 we get into the – move into the actual business portion of the
9:06 meeting.
9:07 I’m open to whatever and it doesn’t – that part of it is
9:09 irrelevant to me. It’s more of a – that’s, you know, that’s
9:13 more of a – just what makes a meeting flow the best.
9:16 My main goal is just to make sure that the non-agenda items are
9:19 moved to the front of the meeting so we don’t have, you know,
9:22 people waiting through the whole meeting to speak on something
9:26 that doesn’t have to do with the agenda.
9:29 And secondly, that it’s televised and that would – if it’s all
9:32 up front, I think a lot of people from both sides of the aisle
9:35 watch these meetings to hear what the public comment is.
9:38 And so I think that it’s – it would be valuable to have all the
9:41 public speaking up front so we don’t have people, you know,
9:44 sitting through a two-hour meeting for just to be able to
9:47 comment on something that wasn’t on the agenda.
9:50 Right, at the end of the meeting. So – but I’m like I’m just
9:52 thinking what if it was just public comment? What if it was an
9:54 agenda versus non-agenda? What if it was just a general public
9:56 comment?
9:57 So I said that – originally I thought of that but then it
9:59 actually dawned on me that if we were moved that then we would
10:02 be reducing somebody’s ability to speak from six minutes total
10:05 to three.
10:06 I still would like the board to entertain the idea of a
10:08 community conversation that’s publicly notice recorded and put
10:11 on our YouTube channel because there are questions that get
10:13 asked and I know that that’s an ask from the district standpoint
10:17 of resources and, you know, obviously we would have to do that
10:19 here so that we have the capability of recording it.
10:22 But I don’t like – I don’t like when people come up and just
10:25 say something for three minutes that’s completely wild and
10:28 inaccurate and we just sit there and we’re like thank you, I’ll
10:31 have another.
10:32 You know, you can’t respond back to say that that’s not true.
10:35 That’s inaccurate. Let me tell you why.
10:37 So I do think that the ability for the board to respond and that
10:40 might actually gain more traction and be more popular than even
10:43 board meetings if that environment was in existence, you know
10:46 what I’m saying?
10:48 And the board members if you don’t want to participate in that
10:51 you don’t have to but I think if we publicly noticed it then at
10:54 least it covers us as far as sunshine goes and it creates that
10:57 environment and we see who shows up to have the conversations
11:00 and who doesn’t so I don’t know.
11:02 If I could add into that if the having the ability with the
11:06 staff here to be able to answer questions and have it be a
11:10 little more less rigid, you know, because we’re not following
11:15 the agenda I think that’s a phenomenal idea. I think it would be
11:19 – I think the public would welcome it. I mean, and it would
11:20 probably reduce a lot of the questions we have brought up to us
11:21 at board meetings because you’d be able to get those answers.
11:23 Yeah, I agree. The questions are to me that’s like the biggest
11:26 tell sign that we’re not doing a good job conveying all the
11:28 information because there’s still like there’s questions
11:31 sometimes it’s about a workshop that just happened that same day.
11:35 So all right, I guess let’s hear what everybody else says. I don’t
11:37 want to be the two driving forces. I would like to hear
11:39 everybody’s input on this conversation. I’m not opposed. I’m in
11:43 agreement that all comments should be publicly recorded and
11:46 archived and televised live. I don’t – I’m in agreement on that
11:50 one with you.
11:51 I’m not necessarily quite there with the six minutes is what –
11:55 basically in essence what you’re saying is 15 or more speakers
11:58 would get six minutes, right? I mean, that’s –
12:00 Fifteen people or less would get six minutes.
12:03 Okay, sorry. Fifteen or less would get six minutes. Sixteen or
12:06 more would get four minutes or what are you thinking there?
12:09 Sorry, could you say –
12:09 Yeah, we got a total of four minutes. It’s just – it’s three
12:11 minutes for each section which is what they have right now.
12:14 Yeah, that makes it just more complicated because what if they’re
12:17 like, hey, I have an agenda item and a non-agenda item so what
12:19 happens if let’s just say for the agenda items we end up with 25
12:23 people that want to speak but non-agenda we have nine.
12:26 So now we’re going to have to figure out and do them – okay,
12:28 they’re going to get three here and two there.
12:30 We figure out how many speakers we have for each section now.
12:32 I don’t know that I necessarily love that. I think just public
12:34 comment in general and make it all televised. I think that’s the
12:37 simpler way to do it personally but I’d like to hear what
12:40 everybody else has to say about this.
12:42 I have input. I’m balancing – I would like to hear Mr. Trent
12:46 first. Don’t worry, I’m going to say something.
12:49 Okay.
12:50 But I’m not going first.
12:51 Okay.
12:52 You can go last, right? There you go. That’ll work.
12:55 Yeah, great conversation, John. Thanks for saying that at the
12:58 beginning that – I mean recognizing when we change things, you
13:02 know, we did double the time for the public to speak.
13:06 And, you know, Megan, you had mentioned early on and after the
13:10 election as we – this is a business meeting. You’re the first
13:13 one that brought it to my attention at the latest second.
13:15 It’s, you know, sometimes hour and a half or two hours before we
13:17 can conduct business.
13:19 So that’s why that conversation started years ago.
13:22 So if this board’s willing, you know, appetite is to change
13:26 things then we look to change things.
13:29 There’s a lot of counties out there and there’s a lot of
13:32 different ideas as you say on that.
13:35 And, you know, but I believe Brevard is going back to tradition
13:40 and saying we like the way things were.
13:43 Well, let’s go back to the way that things were. You know, I’m
13:45 open to conversation of what Megan said is having public comment.
13:49 You know, so we don’t have a back and forth on what’s agenda,
13:51 what’s not agenda.
13:53 You’ve got your three minutes to speak.
13:56 But after looking at, you know, other counties, many of them
14:00 limit the time because if it’s a business meeting and we’re
14:03 going to allow to speak on anything,
14:05 then many of them are capped, you know, from anywhere from 30
14:08 minutes to an hour.
14:10 So just for example, again, I don’t have it typed out and here’s
14:14 my proposal but just in reading and talking to other people
14:17 across the state,
14:19 is if you had an hour of public comment, video, tape, whatever
14:22 you want to do on that, that’s 60 minutes.
14:25 That’s 20 speakers at three minutes.
14:27 And if it’s anything, you know, if there’s 20 speakers, they all
14:29 get their three minutes.
14:30 If it’s less than that, then you can start going down.
14:33 But it’s within that 60 minutes because we need to get on with
14:36 the business meeting.
14:38 And then, you know, we can talk about what Megan had brought up
14:41 about a town hall, if you will, or just an off-site.
14:44 We talked about that in 2022.
14:46 There just wasn’t any interest to have things like this.
14:51 If you guys remember, that was one of the items on many of our
14:55 lists.
14:56 John, you weren’t here at the time but we had talked about that.
14:59 I was in on those conversations as well. So, totally up to that,
15:02 up for that and I think that would be good.
15:05 Especially within your own district if you think that’s where
15:08 the conversation needs to be and it can be moved around and held.
15:13 But, yeah, going to six minutes per person, I don’t know if I’ve
15:16 seen that anywhere in the state.
15:18 That would be the first.
15:20 We have six minutes now and people seem that that’s not enough.
15:24 So, which is it? Is it the videotaping or is it the amount of
15:27 minutes?
15:28 We also understand that this is not the most effective way to
15:31 reach a board member.
15:33 A phone call, an email, a coffee, a meeting, that is always
15:38 there.
15:39 It isn’t like that, you know, we come out of our caves twice a
15:42 month and come here.
15:44 We meet people on a daily basis.
15:46 So, again, I have no problem putting everything under the camera
15:50 if that’s what the few people that you talk to want.
15:54 Yeah, open to that. I certainly don’t want to be the one that
15:57 says, you know, we’re not for hearing people.
16:00 That’s why we expanded it a hundred percent back when we did
16:03 this.
16:04 But, to have six minutes, you know, before the meeting, the
16:07 business actually takes place.
16:10 I don’t see anybody doing that and I don’t want really…
16:12 Just to clarify, I’m not suggesting that. I’m not suggesting we
16:14 add any additional time that we have now.
16:16 Right.
16:17 I’m just suggesting…
16:18 But, it’s after, the way we have it now, it’s split so at least
16:20 we can conduct business after a three minute conversation.
16:23 So, again, so my idea is that, you know, let’s go back to the
16:28 way it was.
16:29 At least let’s look at maybe a limited, a full hour before we do
16:33 business.
16:34 And then we can incorporate something like Ms. Wright was
16:36 talking about as having the big public meetings or a bigger,
16:41 where we can have a back and forth.
16:43 Good job, though. After public comment, where Ms. Campbell or,
16:47 you know, myself or you John or maybe all, any of it, that we
16:51 would comment back after the conversations have had.
16:55 No, at no point do we want to get, in my opinion, get into a
16:58 person standing there and going with a back and forth.
17:03 Many districts absolutely say in their policy, after you’re done
17:07 speaking, you must sit down even if there is a conversation or
17:10 even a direction.
17:12 But, those are some of the things that I’ve found.
17:15 Limiting the amount total so we can at least get to our business,
17:19 have up to those twenty speakers at three minutes each.
17:22 We’re not arguing about is this public comment or is this agenda
17:25 non-agenda, put it on the camera.
17:28 Because if that’s what people want, that’s fine with us.
17:32 Ms. Wright, you were right when there’s many things that are not
17:35 on the camera that we can’t defend because it wasn’t on camera.
17:39 There are counties, and I’ll keep going on this real quick, it
17:42 wasn’t just about the negative of not having the non-agenda item
17:48 videoed.
17:50 There were many cases that, you know, a parent wanted to bring a
17:55 small child, you know, a third grader, second grader, first grader,
17:59 whatever it is, to come here to speak to us and did not want to
18:02 be plastered over YouTube.
18:04 And that was something that was a concern for those citizens
18:08 that did not want to come into being video taped or recorded.
18:13 So, it wasn’t just trying to shut down other things. I don’t
18:17 believe that was the case.
18:19 Well, in defense of the decision we made at the time, we were
18:23 dealing with the lawsuit, we were getting information from Mr.
18:26 Gibbs and he was trying to determine the best course of action.
18:29 So, I’m not saying that we didn’t do what we thought was best at
18:33 the time as a board, but I think now we’ve seen that it needs to
18:36 be revised.
18:38 I mean, it is possible that I think we’re looking for a solution
18:41 in search of a problem in many of these cases, too, because, you
18:45 know, you can public records request our emails.
18:48 We have not had an outcry on the change until it was brought up.
18:53 We brought that up just because, I mean, I don’t know, but I don’t
18:56 know the makeup of every board in the state, but I would have
18:59 ventured a guess we’re probably one of the only all-conservative
19:01 boards.
19:02 And if anybody has an open government, but if anybody has an
19:05 open government and, you know, maximum public participation, it
19:08 should be us. We should be leading the charge.
19:10 Yeah, that’s right. Exactly. Record it all.
19:15 Now, Ms. Campbell, you go ahead and try to put together
19:17 everything.
19:19 Thank you. Well, just to be clear from the beginning, I’m trying
19:23 to balance in this conversation an acknowledgement that this is
19:26 a policy that you guys will be carrying forward.
19:29 And so I feel like my input is to bring as much historical
19:32 knowledge and perspective over the years to the conversation so
19:37 that I can help equip you guys to make the best decision for
19:39 yourselves moving forward, because I won’t be sitting up here.
19:43 And I hope that through the years I have set an example for you
19:47 guys and for the public to see about being an engaged listener,
19:51 and regardless of what we do with the policy, that is really
19:53 important.
19:54 And I know for me that means taking notes, and I’m just right,
19:56 you take notes, too, because, like, I have to be an active
19:58 listener. I have to be right.
19:59 And even though my notes aren’t public record, they’re here. I’ve
20:03 got volumes of note-taking devices from the years.
20:08 So with that in mind, I do, just looking through the proposals,
20:13 I actually think that it would be good for you guys, not on a
20:18 regular basis.
20:19 I agree with what’s been said, not to remove non-agenda. That’s
20:24 been something consistent through the years, is that we have
20:27 said, “No, we don’t want to remove non-agenda from board
20:29 meetings.”
20:30 Because, you know, we have people, and you guys can think of
20:33 times, where a parent literally picks up their school, drops
20:36 them off at home, and charges right up here.
20:39 Now, in my opinion, they’ve skipped over several steps, because
20:41 usually they needed to talk to the principal, they needed to
20:43 identify.
20:44 Sometimes the principal in the school leadership is not even
20:45 aware of the problem, they just come straight to the school
20:47 board meeting because they’re hopping mad, and I get that.
20:50 So they come straight here, and that’s not on the agenda. But we
20:53 don’t want to shut that down, and we haven’t. We’ve never, just
20:57 to be clear, we’ve never not allowed non-agenda public comment
21:01 in a meeting, ever.
21:03 So, but I think this opportunity for community conversations,
21:06 back in the spring, or maybe it was a year ago, I can’t remember
21:09 how long ago, we had quite a few people, students included, who
21:13 asked for town halls.
21:14 You know, we’ve got lots of noise in the room, and just for the
21:16 other people who are sitting in the room, I’m going to ask you,
21:18 I’m sure the chair would, I don’t want to take your role, but
21:21 could you please refrain from talking, because this is not a
21:24 public comment time.
21:29 Lost my place. Oh, we’ve had several people, we had a slew of
21:31 people come and ask us to do town halls, right? You mentioned
21:34 that.
21:35 I think this, I would say maybe quarterly, because I’m trying to
21:39 think of the board’s time commitments, also when we do that, we’re
21:42 probably going to be involving some staff, and for their time, I
21:48 see maybe quarterly would be a great idea for you guys to sit
21:51 down, and then you can have back and forth.
21:54 I don’t want somebody to dominate the whole entire meeting, but
21:57 if you only have a dozen people come, and somebody wants to have
21:59 a 10 minute long back and forth, I think that’s a great idea,
22:02 and that’s a good response to the community who was asking for
22:05 town halls.
22:06 I think that somehow, I don’t think it belongs in policy, but I
22:09 think as practice, it’s a good idea for you guys moving forward.
22:14 So for the historical perspective, Mr. Sousa and I have been
22:20 through all of the different iterations of this policy, just to
22:26 remind the three of you guys, when you got on the board in ‘22,
22:32 and then it was before you got on the board, the board had had a
22:35 couple of different votes.
22:37 We first went to the time factor, three minutes, two minutes,
22:40 one minute, depending on, and then we separated agenda and non-agenda.
22:45 When you guys took office, we immediately went back to, we’re
22:48 going to hear them all at the same time, but it actually wasn’t
22:50 very long before we split them back up, because I think that you
22:53 guys recognize the importance, we recognize again, of keeping
22:56 the meeting going, right?
22:58 So we kept them split. When we turned the cameras off, because
23:02 that has been mischaracterized, I have to take the time to
23:05 explain to the public once again.
23:08 It did absolutely have to do with the Moms for Liberty lawsuit,
23:11 and it actually had to do with the decision that was written in
23:14 that judgment that went beyond even what the ask was.
23:18 The ask from the Moms for Liberty complainants of the legal
23:23 verdict was they wanted to be able to address each board member
23:28 and not just be able to say Mr. Chair, right?
23:32 They want to be able to say Ms. Campbell, they want to say Ms.
23:40 Wright, whoever it was, and that’s what they asked for. Well,
23:49 what the judge ended up writing was they actually rewrote what
23:49 has not just been Rivard’s policy, but policy around the states
23:50 affected by 11th Circuit and city councils and county
23:51 commissioners, which is we, when you came in the meeting, you
23:54 couldn’t talk about, you couldn’t name other people’s names,
23:56 like students’ names, teachers’ names, and all of a sudden now
23:58 this judgment went beyond even what was asked and said, no, you
24:02 can say it.
24:02 You can’t say anybody’s name. We can’t stop you from saying
24:04 anybody’s name. And that was, and I will take the blame, the
24:08 credit, whatever. I couldn’t vote for him. I mean, it’s not me
24:11 alone, but I convinced you.
24:13 I was very strong about this when that decision came out that
24:17 said I don’t want students’ names on our YouTube because for the
24:23 protection of them, and we actually literally had it today where
24:27 a parent mentioned their own child’s name.
24:29 And I remember for the first, like, five out of six meetings
24:32 after we made that decision to turn those cameras off after the
24:35 lawsuit took effect, we had five out of six meetings.
24:39 There was a point in the non-agenda time that wasn’t recorded
24:41 where I went, that’s why we made that decision, because people
24:44 were bringing up students’ names in derogatory ways or staff
24:48 members’ names who did not have a chance to defend themselves,
24:51 and literally the judge wrote in the decision, well, if that
24:52 happens, they can just sue them.
24:54 I don’t really like that. But we have heard from the public, and
24:58 I’ll be honest, I thought one of the commenters said earlier
25:02 today that the contention points didn’t happen when we split
25:06 agenda, non-agenda, even though sometimes there is some
25:09 confusion as to what is what.
25:11 The contention point came when we turned the cameras off because
25:14 then the people who didn’t want to be not on the camera, who
25:17 some of them have characterized it as we’re not letting them
25:20 speak, we’re letting them speak, we’re just not letting you
25:22 become a YouTube star on our – sorry for being negative about
25:25 that.
25:26 But we’re shutting that down. It’s for everybody else to hear it.
25:30 But I hear it. There’s people who aren’t worried about being an
25:31 influencer who want to hear it, whether it’s because they love
25:34 juicy gossip or they’re just really interested in all the
25:36 details of everybody’s lives.
25:38 I had to do the school district. Sorry. I told myself I wasn’t
25:41 going to get the negative. But the truth is that is just what it
25:44 is sometimes. Sometimes not.
25:47 I still have the concern. But I will tell you, my feedback is
25:51 that if the big – because I agree that the biggest points of
25:56 contention when we turned the cameras off, that’s when people
26:00 started fabricating ways to make their item and agenda item in
26:04 the chair.
26:05 Three different chairs now – or two different chairs since we
26:07 made that decision have had to struggle with is this agenda or
26:10 non-agenda, and Paul’s trying to help us and we’re all trying to
26:13 help each other make this decision, is to turn the cameras back
26:16 on.
26:17 Here’s some – after reading through Mr. Thomas’s, here’s what I
26:22 said. I don’t think an agenda public comment time followed
26:26 immediately by a non-agenda public comment time is a good use of
26:31 the board’s time.
26:33 I will tell you that through eight years now, there is hardly
26:36 ever, really, truly, hardly ever – even when we only had one
26:39 public comment time, it was all consolidated for the first three
26:43 years that I was on the board – that anybody really – most
26:47 people can finish it and they have extra time and he resets the
26:50 clock.
26:51 Hardly anybody ever goes over unless they have an extremely long
26:53 preamble, which sometimes people do.
26:56 So if you’re going to do that, I would suggest just do one
26:59 public comment time at the beginning, like we used to do, like
27:02 the board did for years and years and years, and it was enough
27:05 until we got to the COVID years and it got a little cray-cray,
27:07 and then it calmed down a little bit.
27:10 It was three minutes. It was always three minutes, and it was
27:13 for anything you wanted to talk about. It still had to be
27:16 relevant. You can’t come in here and talk about immigration,
27:18 right, if it doesn’t relate to the school board policy.
27:20 You can’t talk about, you know, whatever. I guess you could talk
27:23 about the color of the carpet because that does fall under us,
27:25 but it has to be relevant.
27:29 If the board would not want to do that, because you do reduce
27:33 the amount of time – and thank you, Mr. Thomas, for pointing
27:37 out that the way we do it, we actually give people more time.
27:39 And then if we have public hearings on policy or we have public
27:42 hearing on the budget or whatever, that gives people even more
27:45 time.
27:46 They’ve got three minutes, three minutes, and potentially
27:49 however many three minutes. So then I would just say, do it the
27:51 way we’re doing it, but turn the cameras back on, and we’ll just
27:53 have to deal with the consequences of people coming up and
27:57 saying students’ names and staff names that can’t defend
27:59 themselves,
28:00 and encourage the people who they may be – I can’t remember if
28:03 it’s slander or libel – to take whatever legal action they feel
28:06 necessary. That is a shame.
28:09 And I think it’s an unintended consequence, but it is a
28:11 consequence of the lawsuit and the changes that we had to make
28:14 resulting from the lawsuit.
28:16 So that would be my suggestion. It’s not to do them back to back,
28:20 but just to either combine them or turn the cameras back on,
28:23 which seems to be the simplest solution.
28:26 And the other thing that I would add – and you talked about
28:29 people having to wait for non-agenda. My answer to that is
28:33 actually the way we do it now, there’s not – because we get
28:36 through the consent agenda and a few action items, it’s very
28:38 little time.
28:39 Most of the time, even when I go back and watch the meetings, we’re
28:42 talking about five minutes or less sometimes between agenda
28:44 public comment time and non-agenda public comment time, so I don’t
28:47 think they’re having to wait very much more.
28:48 What takes so long is all the presentations at the beginning,
28:50 which everybody who comes to talk to us is going to have to sit
28:52 through, and I don’t fault that because part of the business of
28:55 the board is celebrating our partnerships like we did today with
28:59 Parrish and our great staff work.
29:01 The only other thing that I would say – this is where I was
29:03 getting to – is that the board should retain the right, as we
29:06 have always had in policy – and I was trying to find it, but I
29:09 believe we have it in there, Paul – to adjust in extraordinary
29:13 circumstances.
29:15 That happened – one of the things I can think of, when we were
29:18 going through mask debates, we had had so many public comments,
29:21 we didn’t really need a whole lot, but we had 132 people sign up,
29:26 we gave everybody one minute because we were trying to get
29:27 through and make the decision.
29:29 It was a special board meeting, and we gave everybody one minute.
29:32 I think if you set a time limit, like Mr. Trent mentioned, the
29:35 board should reserve the right that if it’s a really important
29:38 issue that we say, you know what, the public is really steamy
29:42 right now, we need to give them extra time, let’s extend it to
29:44 90 minutes, let’s do whatever.
29:46 Or to extend the right that if we have a whole bunch, but we’ve
29:48 got a lot to get done, that we say, you know what, tonight
29:51 everybody’s going to only get two minutes.
29:54 The board should always reserve the right to still hear
29:56 everybody, but to make adjustments as needed.
29:59 For the most part, for the most part, over the last four years,
30:03 we’ve not had any huge numbers of public commenters where even
30:07 the limits that you guys have suggested would take effect.
30:11 So that’s my input as you guys – as we make this conversation,
30:15 but then as you guys move forward with it without me.
30:19 » Thank you. I have a couple of questions. Mr. Gibbs, so in
30:24 regards to the profanity, so we’ve had people say, I have a
30:28 picture of a male genitalia, using other terms, right?
30:32 I want to show you, and he was tackled at the thing and stuff
30:35 like that. And we’ve had many of those kind of instances.
30:39 In that regard, what does the – if we have the lights on camera
30:43 for non-agenda and agenda, what does the actual board chair have
30:48 in their disposal for that?
30:51 » We have a definition of profanity that’s prohibited.
30:54 » I know. I’m going to run it.
30:56 » As long as it fits within the definition, you can stop it. We’ve
31:00 given proper notice to the public that this is not allowed
31:02 during our meeting.
31:04 And if they stand up and start saying people’s names and staff
31:08 and stuff like that, we can also stop them.
31:11 » No.
31:12 » That’s the 11th Circuit.
31:14 » That’s the issue. Okay. And then –
31:19 » It doesn’t put students’ names.
31:21 » Is that a liability in our district if they’re saying stuff
31:24 about our schools and staff and stuff like that?
31:28 » Something that if it upsets staff, they would have to take –
31:32 you know, if they’re defamed in any way, they’d have to go down
31:35 to the courthouse and file a lawsuit.
31:37 We can’t do it on their behalf. It’s a personal cause of action.
31:40 » Against the person speaking.
31:42 » Right. I’ve been in a district where a principal was defamed,
31:47 and they filed their own lawsuit against that parent and got a $75,000
31:51 judgment against them.
31:53 » Thank you for saying that out loud.
31:55 » So, I mean, that’s their – yeah, it’s their option. It’s a
31:59 cost on our staff members that they then have to go out and find
32:01 an attorney and pay that attorney to go file a lawsuit on their
32:04 behalf against somebody.
32:06 » That’s something we talked about in the past before about
32:09 assisting in those regards with people who are being defamed by
32:12 their actual – you know what I mean?
32:14 » We don’t – I don’t represent the staff. I represent the
32:17 district and the board, so –
32:20 » You know how somebody might get attacked and everything like
32:23 that, and they have no money to go ahead and defend.
32:27 » That would be – I would not go there.
32:30 » I’m not saying we do. I’m just saying there’s – that’s just
32:32 a sad situation. Okay.
32:34 Paul, let me ask you this. So, it sounds like – I mean, there
32:37 seems to be sort of a consensus on multiple items, right?
32:41 But, Paul, let me ask you this. If we moved, say, agenda and non-agenda,
32:47 combined them, right, streamed them, but one of the things that
32:52 we ended up having,
32:53 which was a concern of ours, was that we have students and stuff
32:56 like that that come in here, right, and they set up for their
32:59 meetings and they do all that stuff.
33:01 And then we also have the businesses on the back end that are
33:04 there for their contracts and stuff like that, right?
33:08 So, there seems to be that in between where we might have some
33:11 of these, I guess you said, YouTube sensation people or whatever
33:15 it is trying to do it.
33:17 What is it possible – and this is just a thought – if we moved
33:20 it to before, all of that, started it at 4.30, took in 45
33:27 minutes like Mr. Thomas wants for his time period.
33:30 Just hear me out. And then we started the meeting right
33:33 afterwards. Can we do that?
33:35 » We have like a non-agenda period?
33:38 » No. We have agenda items. We open up and say, you know, here’s
33:41 the agenda. Here’s what it is. You can speak to it for 45
33:44 minutes. We divide it up like Mr. Thomas was saying.
33:48 And then once they’re finished, we’ve taken in all the public,
33:50 because here’s what – here’s where I come from.
33:53 We’re starting to do a great job in regards to finding – when
33:56 people come up and try to ask legitimate questions, we’re
34:00 working with them to get those solutions.
34:02 Sometimes, though, they’re waiting until the end of the meeting,
34:05 which sometimes is short, sometimes is long, and they’re in here,
34:09 and a lot of them have to deal with their families and stuff
34:10 like that.
34:11 My thought was, if we put it at the beginning, we could address
34:14 that and say, here’s where you can get your information, here’s
34:17 what you can do, and then we can respond during our board
34:20 comments to what they have.
34:23 Because right now, what ends up happening is, is when the public
34:26 comment comes out, if we’re right on top of the meeting, we run
34:28 through the meeting, and then there’s no time to work with staff
34:31 and stuff like that.
34:33 Can we open up with public comments?
34:35 » You can set your public comment wherever you want. So if you
34:38 wanted to open, approve the agenda, and then go straight to
34:40 public comment, you can certainly do that.
34:42 You could start it, and then what could happen is, they clear,
34:45 our kids come in for their presentations, our staff, whoever
34:49 that is, they have that, we move through the business meeting,
34:53 and then by the end of the business meeting, we would be able to
34:55 have some answers.
34:56 Because one of the things that happens is, is that some people
34:58 make comments and stuff like that, we don’t address it by the
35:00 end, and it’s not, like you said, not addressed out in public.
35:03 But it would give us an opportunity to say, hey, we did some
35:05 research in this, in that time period, our staff can do it.
35:09 That was what I was asking, if it’s actually legal to do
35:11 something like that.
35:13 » You can set that up.
35:15 » Pinellas does, and Orange does.
35:17 » Sort of what Orange does, I think.
35:19 » So if, I mean, you’re talking right now, and that’s a couple
35:22 items, a couple things. Orange does it before.
35:26 » Look at you, you did some research, bro.
35:29 » Yeah, before the meeting. So also Pinellas does it after. So
35:32 they actually adjourn the meeting.
35:35 So it’s a kind of a combination of, Megan, what you’re talking
35:38 about, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Thomas, is they want to have that back
35:42 and forth, possibly.
35:44 But they adjourn the meeting, and then they, like how we have it
35:47 now, and then they have the non-agenda public comment, they
35:50 video it, but then there’s more of a back and forth.
35:53 But the meeting is done.
35:55 » Are you sure Orange does back and forth?
35:57 » No, I’m talking Pinellas.
35:59 » Oh, okay, okay.
36:00 » Pinellas adjourns their meeting, and then, so it’s very
36:02 similar to ours, but we don’t adjourn our meeting, right?
36:06 They adjourn the meeting, they keep the cameras running, and
36:08 then they have their non-agenda public comment afterwards.
36:13 The only thing I know about Orange is it’s before their meeting.
36:15 I don’t know if it’s, they start their meeting and they start
36:18 with it.
36:19 They actually, I thought when reading it, they actually have
36:21 their non-agenda items before the meeting.
36:24 » I do.
36:25 » So it’s not adjourned, I mean, it’s adjourned also. It hasn’t
36:26 started.
36:28 » So they only take 10, right?
36:30 So we’re explaining that it started the beginning of our meeting,
36:34 they actually do it an hour before.
36:37 » So there’s a couple of components, right?
36:40 One of the reasons we stopped bringing the kids in was because
36:42 of some of this, right?
36:45 So I would really love to allow the kids to come in, and with
36:49 that animosity being cleared, or the public speaking being
36:53 cleared,
36:54 and giving us an opportunity to kind of research some of the
36:56 comments that are said, and give us an opportunity to speak back
36:59 to it,
37:00 when we have it where it is, it ends up right on top of, that we
37:04 talk about all the other items that we’re going through,
37:07 and then all of a sudden we have board reports and we don’t have
37:09 time.
37:10 I would like to entertain putting it above, in the front, having
37:13 it start a little bit early, having it time certain, just like
37:16 you guys were saying,
37:18 in a 15 minute break where.
37:20 everybody comes in or get set up and then we move through the
37:23 board agenda
37:24 meeting. I don’t know. This is my thought, but I do. I do want
37:28 to recognize
37:29 that it seems that there is a consensus for stream. There is a
37:33 consensus for
37:34 agenda and non agenda. There is a consensus for some sort of
37:37 time limits,
37:38 right? And oh, Paul, can we legally move around the number of
37:42 minutes that
37:43 people have that when if it’s your policy, we had a scaled
37:47 system before,
37:48 like one to tens three, 11 to 20 was okay. Just wanted to make
37:51 sure we could
37:51 do that. But we we can also do it on the fly. Like, hey, there’s
37:54 100 people here
37:55 and we just want to give a minute each. It’s in our policy under
37:58 extraordinary
37:59 type circumstances. So, like, if you did have 100, you could
38:02 certainly maneuver
38:03 that, Mr Chair. Just ask a question when we’re on that topic. If
38:07 we were to do
38:07 that, we moved. Say we had an hour set aside for the beginning
38:10 of the meeting
38:11 for public comment, non agenda items. If for some reason we it’s
38:15 a hard the
38:16 business meeting starts that let’s just say we started this at 4
38:19 30 and the
38:19 business meeting started at 5 30. Could we move them? Make a
38:23 motion at that time
38:24 to move the rest of the public comment to the end of the
38:26 business meeting. If
38:28 there was, I’m just saying that in some sort of answer, we had
38:30 some enormous
38:31 number of people. Just so you know, if the public comes, they
38:33 have to be able
38:34 to speak to an agenda item. So if we just rolled it and pushed
38:38 it back, then
38:40 we wouldn’t. Orange County right now allows and has a like if
38:43 this many
38:44 people show up, this many people come down. Um, I think I think
38:49 that for the
38:50 intense and purposes of what we have and what we’re doing, um,
38:53 my concern,
38:55 just so everybody knows and you guys have all seen me up here,
38:57 like there’s
38:58 been people that have trash talked me. I said, Let him go. I’m
39:00 not worried
39:01 about the public comments and stuff like that. As much as I am
39:04 about our
39:05 Children coming in, giving presentations and doing stuff, but
39:08 also hearing from
39:09 the public and also giving them their time. But then also, like
39:12 like you guys
39:13 had said, limiting that amount of time based on the number of
39:16 speakers. And
39:17 I’ll be honest, I think in the last two years, I can’t even
39:20 remember when we
39:21 had more than 20 speakers. So I think it’s within the right of
39:24 saying, Hey,
39:25 that’s a good 45. And then if they go under the 20 or whatever
39:29 it is 15, then
39:30 we get to a place where we reduce it to two minutes and stuff
39:32 like that. I
39:33 think that’s good. We could actually do the to your point. I
39:38 would like to
39:39 start the meeting at 5 30 like we’re normally doing just to the
39:41 business
39:41 being at 6 30 allows more people to get here because of work.
39:46 But to your
39:47 point and and to Mr Trent’s point, if we were to limit the
39:50 public comments,
39:51 not agenda to the beginning of the meeting for an hour, 99.9% of
39:54 the time
39:55 that’s going to cover everything. And if we do have an large
39:57 number, we could
39:58 do incorporate the the 15 minutes, 15 people for three minutes.
40:02 If you had 16
40:03 or more, we go to two minutes. If we you want to do a third tier
40:06 to that,
40:07 everybody gets a minute. If it’s beyond 60 people or whatever,
40:09 whatever. I’m
40:10 making it up it so it doesn’t go over an hour. So hang on, let
40:13 me let me get this
40:14 straight. So you’re saying instead of doing the combined, which
40:18 I thought we
40:19 had a consensus on, we’re gonna say put non-agenda up front is
40:22 what you’re
40:23 recommending, Mr. Thomas, and then having it on a shortened
40:27 whatever minutes. Have
40:28 an hour set aside. Whatever it is. And then a 15 minute break
40:33 and then you
40:34 start the business meeting with agenda item conversation. Then
40:37 we just get our
40:38 normal agenda and if there’s agenda comments, comments for the
40:41 agenda, which I
40:42 think will be minimized because we’re gonna have most of those,
40:46 a lot of the,
40:46 you know, we won’t have the debate between what’s on the agenda
40:48 and what’s
40:49 not. Well, I mean this is, this is when we discuss this and I,
40:53 and this, Campbell, you
40:54 kind of said it, it’s camera and it’s a discussion between, yes
41:00 I am talking on
41:01 agenda item, no I’m not. If we separate this, just think about
41:05 this, is it’s still
41:06 gonna happen. You’re still gonna have people coming up and
41:09 saying, and talking
41:09 during agenda time on non-agenda item comments or topics. So we
41:15 didn’t really
41:15 solve that. They want another, you know, because many of our
41:18 agenda items are not
41:19 very exciting and they want to come here for the excitement part
41:23 and they want to
41:24 come here because they have a beef with the chair or, you know,
41:28 they want them to
41:29 stop. I mean we have, we have, we have our regulars that they
41:32 just want the chair,
41:33 doesn’t matter who it is, to stop me so I can squawk. That’s why
41:38 I’m like, put it,
41:39 put it together. That’s why I’m like, put, just put it together.
41:42 If I can just throw
41:44 in my two cents on that. I think we don’t want to make it, we
41:47 don’t want to create
41:48 a policy based upon what, somebody who might abuse, I’m just
41:51 saying, there’s
41:51 somebody that might abuse, abuse the system. I think we need to
41:55 make sure that
41:55 we just keep it black and white. If somebody wants to speak on
41:58 non-agenda
41:59 items, they have an opportunity if they, because it’s the only
42:01 time they can
42:02 address our, address our board on non-agenda items as a board,
42:05 collectively,
42:06 and if they want to speak on something that’s on the agenda,
42:08 then there’s a
42:09 place for them to speak on the agenda. It’s not, we’re not like
42:11 we’re trying to
42:12 set a world speed record for quick meetings. It sounds great.
42:15 That’s why at this point we
42:16 have to kind of think of all the areas, how can we handle most,
42:19 more of the
42:20 situations with our policy and it seems like, because that was
42:24 the discussion,
42:25 many of our, the discrepancy was two things. One was the videotaping
42:31 and the
42:31 other one was determining non-agenda, an agenda item. We can, in
42:35 policy, take care
42:37 of both of those. Record it and give them their three minutes to
42:41 speak and then we
42:42 go ahead and do your, you know, not yours, but you know, a town
42:46 hall or a public
42:48 discussion quarterly. Then it takes care of that. If you
42:52 separate it, and I was
42:54 for separate and I am for it, it depends what we all want to do,
42:56 but if we do, if
42:57 we do separate it, we’re still, we didn’t solve that issue. So
43:00 it isn’t about that.
43:01 Other than, give them, give, let’s do the hour of public comment
43:05 and let’s get on,
43:06 you know, with their business. And you guys have been on the
43:08 board longer than
43:08 I, but I, my, I don’t recall there being much of an issue of
43:12 people trying to
43:13 speak on non-agenda items during the agenda portion of the
43:16 meetings when it
43:18 was televised. It only became an issue when it became non-televised.
43:23 So they’re
43:24 trying to make sure that everything fits. But if, but if, if
43:27 that, that barrier is
43:28 removed, they’re gonna say, people are gonna say what they want
43:31 to say during
43:31 non-agenda and they’re gonna, if they have one, if they do want
43:33 to speak on an
43:34 agenda item, they still have that opportunity. And there are
43:36 many counties
43:36 too, if you’ve done, if you’ve done the research or that, if you,
43:39 if they did
43:40 split it, you got one time to speak. So choose, you’re doing
43:43 your three minutes
43:44 on the agenda item, you’re doing your three minutes on the non-agenda
43:47 item. But we want to
43:48 make, if we’re gonna try to maximize, just turn the cameras on.
43:54 Just turn the cameras on. That’s a
43:54 hundred percent. That’s what we’re doing, but turn the cameras
43:57 on. And I, you know, I, Mr. Susan, I appreciate
44:01 your thing. I would just say, if y’all ever did that and had
44:03 like the pre, like a
44:04 lot of boards do, kind of the pre-meeting, I wouldn’t start at 4.30
44:07 because we have
44:08 a lot of time. Remember, we’re talking about the bus drivers
44:09 being able to come, the
44:10 parents being able to come. 5.30 sometimes is too hard for them
44:13 and that’s why we’ve
44:13 made it where you can sign up all the way past the start of the
44:16 meeting, all
44:16 the way up to the point where we get to public comment time,
44:18 which sometimes is
44:19 6.30, but, and so you get all the way to that point to sign up.
44:23 So I, not as in
44:25 favor of that, but if you did it, I would maybe move it to like
44:28 5 and have the
44:28 meeting start at 6, you know, at the latest. But I, I agree. I
44:33 think the
44:33 easiest thing for you guys moving forward is just to turn the
44:36 cameras on
44:37 and go back and, and we’ll just have to make sure we make it
44:39 clear, look at your
44:40 non-agenda public comment time is going to be very shortly after
44:43 we vote on all
44:44 these really important things that we have to vote on. Right.
44:46 And then we’re gonna
44:46 sit here, listen, the other benefit of turning the cameras on,
44:49 even though I
44:49 still have, I just want to reiterate, I still have a problem
44:52 with the ability of
44:53 people and it’s just, it is legally what it is. I still have a
44:56 problem and I don’t
44:56 think the intent of the lawsuit brought by our local
44:59 organization was for people
45:00 to be able to smear teacher, principal and students’ names.
45:03 Unfortunately, it was
45:04 a very real consequence of that and it has happened multiple
45:08 times. That being
45:10 said, um, turn camera, one thing about turning cameras off was
45:14 because we want
45:15 to make sure we weren’t doing business off camera so that we
45:18 kept that. So we
45:19 tried very hard to, when the last speaker spoke, the chairman
45:23 adjourned the meeting,
45:23 we were done. We made an exception last time because Mr. Thomas
45:27 wanted to talk
45:27 about his policy and brought up a vote and so we did, we did
45:31 conduct some
45:32 business. If you keep the cameras on after you get it, get done
45:36 with the
45:36 non-agenda and a board member wants to address something that
45:39 was said or wants
45:40 to bring up, oh I forgot this, then, then you feel, you’ll feel
45:43 a little more
45:44 freedom to be able to do that because the meeting’s not over. I
45:47 did want to
45:48 bring a couple, couple things just from our policy as it stands.
45:51 We do have, and
45:52 I suggest you always keep this, however, should a situation
45:57 arise that the board
45:58 believes additional modifications to the public comment times
46:00 need to be made, the
46:01 board may make additional adjustments with a majority vote of
46:04 the board. It’s
46:05 always been in there, you will continue to have that. One thing
46:07 though, Mr.
46:08 Susan, I would caution against us, I don’t think this is where
46:11 you guys are
46:11 going, but there is a part in here that’s important. No board
46:16 action shall be taken
46:17 on requests made during public discussion unless the board
46:19 declares a
46:20 matter to be an emergency in accordance with current law. Any
46:22 other requests that
46:23 the board chooses to take action on shall be placed on agenda
46:26 for a
46:26 subsequent meeting. I would caution the board to try to find a
46:29 solution for
46:30 someone to, because you don’t want to set that precedent, we’re
46:32 gonna find a
46:33 solution for you before the end of the meeting because this is,
46:36 this is a
46:37 listening opportunity for us and to put the weight on staff,
46:40 which we already
46:41 sometimes do in necessary circumstances, to say find a solution
46:45 with all your
46:46 staff not here under you, find a solution, get it back to the
46:49 superintendent so we
46:50 can report it back to the end of the meeting. That’s, that’s too
46:52 much of an expectation
46:53 because staff needs time to do their job and get back to you and
46:57 from the
46:58 superintendent, you know, and so I, I hesitate, it’s not best
47:01 practice to look
47:02 down to the superintendent and say give me an answer right now.
47:05 I don’t, and I
47:06 don’t think, so just so you know like where I’m coming from is
47:10 we’ve been, I
47:11 mean I’ve been on the board since 2016, I’ve watched a lot of
47:13 this, but I feel
47:14 like over the last, even last two months, we’ve done a good job
47:17 of somebody coming
47:18 up addressing the situation and then having staff work on it and
47:23 then get us
47:24 a real quick report. I would never say go back and forth, it
47:27 never wins, like you
47:28 just don’t, like it, it’s, it just all of a sudden becomes a
47:31 nightmare, but - I would
47:33 agree with you on that though, Mr. Susan. One thing used to
47:35 drive me crazy, just from my
47:36 past experience being on a city council was there was not any
47:39 interaction with
47:40 somebody to come up with a problem and I think collectively the
47:42 board’s done a
47:43 really good job of engaging when we need to. I just, my, my
47:46 thing is, is that if we
47:47 have a time between then, we would be able to come back at the
47:51 end when we’re
47:51 on camera and say, because there’s been some allegations that
47:54 after the meeting
47:55 we find out that they were completely like, way off in what they
47:58 were saying. So
48:00 almost like there’s been some allegations that there’s been some
48:02 cuts
48:03 to areas when we actually found out that we expanded those areas
48:06 and there’s
48:07 other things, so for me it was that if we had them at the front,
48:11 right, then we
48:12 would be able to hear them and then in the event that there’s
48:15 something that we
48:16 need to speak to them and say we, we hear you, this is what it
48:19 is at the end, we
48:20 would be able to have enough time for staff to bring us some of
48:22 those
48:23 questions and stuff like that and work with them. I think, I
48:26 think there’s a
48:27 definite yes, let’s turn them on, yes, quarterly town hall, can
48:34 we speak about
48:35 that real quick? Yeah. Are you okay with a quarterly town hall?
48:38 I’m fine with that
48:39 and I’m not even gonna call it a town hall because I think town
48:41 hall gives a
48:42 misconception. I want it to be a community conversation, like we
48:45 are going
48:45 to converse, it is going to be a back and forth, so town hall
48:48 feels a little more
48:49 like I’m gonna get up there and just spew a bunch of stuff at
48:51 you guys and
48:52 it’s not the back and forth ability and I think, I mean, I think
48:55 it’d be
48:56 beneficial if the entire board was present for this and that way
49:00 we can all,
49:00 there’s things that some people know that others don’t and I
49:03 think it gives
49:03 us the ability to address any kind of wildly inaccurate things
49:08 that get
49:08 brought before us or concerns that someone has, like let’s hey,
49:11 let me listen
49:11 to this and tell me what’s going on and let’s see if we can find
49:14 a resolution
49:14 and hopefully it maybe can eliminate some of the questions that
49:18 we keep
49:18 getting asked at the podium because that’s where I’m like, they
49:20 keep asking
49:21 questions, I’m like we have to answer the questions because if
49:23 we were
49:24 doing our job at communicating that stuff then those questions
49:26 would already
49:27 be answered when we go to vote on these things, so we have to
49:29 acknowledge the
49:30 fact that maybe we have some room for improvement in this area.
49:33 Are you
49:33 thinking like a north and it’s kind of between you two? No, I’m
49:36 thinking here at
49:37 the district, I think that that’s the easiest thing to do
49:39 because it should be
49:40 reported and it should be put on our YouTube channel as well and
49:42 the easiest
49:42 way to do that is to hold it here in this board. What about if
49:46 we
49:46 were due to a community conversation, that’s the public comment
49:49 from five to
49:50 six before every board meeting. That could be a little spicy
49:55 because I
49:56 anticipate this, this is what I kind of think will happen and
49:58 maybe I’m wrong and
49:59 I don’t know, I mean I’m just based on being on this board for
50:01 four years now
50:02 and what we’ve seen for public comment. I anticipate that, well
50:07 maybe I shouldn’t
50:08 say I anticipate because I don’t have a crystal ball. I’ll be
50:11 honest, I anticipate
50:12 that they won’t have great attendance because unfortunately we’ve
50:15 been asked
50:15 for town halls and this is one of the things that I shared with
50:17 some of the
50:18 people who came up last year was asking for town halls. When we’ve
50:20 had town halls, or
50:22 not town halls but like this opportunity for people to ask
50:25 questions, Dr. Rendell
50:26 did it when he first, remember, when he first got on the board
50:28 and Dr. Rendell, I
50:29 think your largest audience maybe had 30ish people. So my first
50:33 year as
50:34 superintendent I held five town halls throughout the year,
50:36 various parts of the
50:37 community. The maximum attendance was 18. 18 and a handful of
50:42 those were staff.
50:43 A handful of those were staff. Most of them were less than ten.
50:47 Yeah now maybe
50:48 if it’s the board we’d have more people and but I do think it’s
50:53 a good idea to
50:54 at least try it but I wouldn’t put it in policy I just put it in
50:57 practice and when
50:58 you, my suggestion would be when you get your new board member
51:01 seated in November
51:02 one of the first things you guys do at you know early workshop
51:06 or maybe when we
51:07 have that meeting we talked about doing like a pre you know
51:10 onboarding thing
51:10 that hey let’s just all pick a date in January cuz we only have
51:15 one meeting in
51:15 January pick a date in January we’re gonna do our first
51:18 community
51:19 conversation and and have it set but and I would also caution
51:23 board members
51:23 sometimes we get a little loose-lipped and start saying things
51:27 and promising
51:28 things we have to just to be measured yes we want to be back and
51:31 forth but we
51:33 are not always the people with all the knowledge most frequently
51:35 are not the
51:36 people with all the knowledge so we just be cautious and and and
51:39 ask questions
51:40 and really be more of a question asking get all the information
51:43 what it what do
51:43 you mean by that and and somebody public are mentioned that I
51:47 think it was you it
51:48 said okay well where did you come from that where did you hear
51:50 that let me get
51:50 all the information that that would be a great benefit and if we
51:53 only have 18
51:54 people show up and you do it call that a success there you go
51:57 like honestly it’s
51:58 easier to have a conversation with 18 people than with 60 so but
52:02 are you guys
52:03 against doing them regionally like I know I’m not aside from the
52:07 strain that
52:08 might put on the staff I mean I think that there’s probably
52:10 value in that
52:11 because you’re right getting somebody from Titusville to come
52:13 down here is a
52:14 struggle and the same for Palm Bay it’s the struggle you have
52:16 representing the
52:17 north and the south makes it really hard it does make it very
52:20 hard I just don’t
52:21 know logistically because we would have to do that at a school
52:24 and I want to
52:24 ensure that these are recorded and put on our YouTube channel
52:27 that way we can
52:28 refer back to them if things get discussed or questions get
52:31 answered that
52:32 you know we could save us some time can Mike’s been able to
52:34 record but not
52:35 livestream when we’re remote okay recorded it’s fine it’s out
52:39 there and
52:40 the information exists for people to be able to find it at a
52:42 later time if they
52:43 want to see it live come to it right can we also instead of can
52:49 we set a mini
52:50 allow people to come in on improvements so part of the
52:54 conversation is not just
52:55 open but like hey if you have an idea on how to help change
52:59 something there was
53:00 as a school board employee years ago as an I would have loved
53:03 the opportunity to
53:05 come and say hey here’s some ideas that I have and stuff like
53:07 that that’s in my
53:08 mind that’s what I want to hear because we want the community to
53:11 be able to
53:11 convey to us the things they want to see different in our school
53:14 system and that
53:15 goes for employees that goes for our families our students all
53:17 of them like I
53:17 want to create that environment to where those conversations can
53:21 happen now
53:22 there’s no promise that any of those things can be delivered
53:24 upon but if the
53:25 conversation starts that’s kind of step one right let’s see
53:28 where it goes well
53:29 when we’re hoping that they they they don’t look at that is
53:33 their first line
53:35 of communication still because we’re not going to hit right don’t
53:41 wait quarterly
53:42 yes you know email call so we can actually get them pointed in
53:47 the right
53:47 direction member we’re big traffic cops here that’s what we are
53:50 we we point them
53:50 in the right direction in our inboxes right now maybe not all of
53:54 us for
53:55 everyone that I have sitting but in my inboxes right now just in
53:57 the last 24
53:57 hours I have multiple people who have come straight to us right
54:00 and the
54:00 principal is not even aware of the situation and that’s the
54:03 first step and
54:03 I’m directing them back go to the principal first the principal
54:06 needs to
54:06 know this is going on so you know we always want to encourage
54:09 people go go
54:10 there to the person with the information first I don’t know
54:13 about you mr. chair
54:14 but I’m getting a consensus on keeping where we are now and at
54:18 least a three
54:19 member consensus and just turning the cameras back on I was
54:21 gonna well I was
54:22 gonna ask if you guys if you wanted to kind of this is my
54:27 thought I would
54:28 really like to think about that moving it to the front and
54:31 having that combined
54:32 having it turned on and then having the meeting roll only
54:35 because I feel like we
54:36 can address some of the situations what I would ask is that it
54:40 seems like we
54:41 have like you said a streamed yes some sort of time thing yes
54:47 quarterly town
54:48 halls yes adjusting in early circumstances yes the one thing
54:53 that we
54:53 have is is agenda non-agenda combined or not front can we think
54:59 about that for a
55:00 leading time then the next meeting come back and then sit and
55:03 say okay here’s
55:04 where we all feel and go from there or do you guys want to try
55:08 to lock this
55:08 down right now I say I personally say we need some time to
55:12 digest what we’ve all
55:13 just I don’t I don’t think I don’t want it to be like we’re
55:15 trying to stall this
55:16 but those two pieces is all I ask and the only reason I’ll be
55:20 completely
55:21 honest I have no problem listening to anybody say anything I
55:24 just want the
55:25 ability to have the time to address them you do such a
55:27 phenomenal job that when
55:29 they come in and they speak you’re able to communicate when we
55:32 get to our board
55:33 reports at the end or after I would just love that opportunity
55:36 the problem that
55:37 we have is is that if we put them at the end and we let them
55:39 speak then right at
55:40 the end we’re scrambling to try to figure out what happened what
55:43 we can say
55:44 and a lot of times we get lobbied and then by the time we come
55:46 back it’s two
55:47 weeks later and we don’t have the opportunity to respond so I
55:50 would just
55:51 ask that of course it’s just my request but I think we’re
55:55 definitely there I
55:56 just think that those would be something that we had asked a
55:58 little bit of
55:59 conversation on that so um I guess my feelings on it are I still
56:02 prefer to
56:03 keep the non-agenda at the end and only being the reason being
56:06 is just
56:07 historically being on the board and what we’ve seen and so we’ve
56:09 we’ve had
56:10 instances where you get out of town paid protesters that come
56:13 here and speak
56:14 and it’s not a non-agenda item sometimes it is sometimes it’s
56:17 not and to be
56:19 honest and transparent with this like you’re not gonna none of
56:21 us are in our
56:22 best form to govern adequately and be able to articulate what we
56:25 need to say
56:25 on what’s happening with the agenda after you get beat down for
56:29 three
56:29 minutes for two hours so for me like hey if it’s a non-agenda
56:32 item I want to hear
56:33 the public specifically about the things we’re gonna vote on
56:36 because there could
56:37 be some concerns we had today I’ll give miss Fulton kudos
56:40 because I think you
56:41 might have been the first person that that’s this has ever
56:43 happened but with
56:44 some valid things that have come before us that you’re like hey
56:47 these are
56:47 actually legitimate concerns that we need to address before we
56:49 move forward
56:50 until today I don’t know that I can necessarily name an instance
56:53 there
56:54 probably is one somewhere but I can’t name one so this one’s
56:56 fresh that’s why
56:57 why I can name it so easily but my feelings on it would be no
57:00 just to keep
57:01 it from the cameras on keep the non-agenda at the end and then
57:04 hear from
57:05 the public about the things that we’re gonna vote on agenda
57:07 items I understand
57:08 the struggle between being the chair and trying to figure out is
57:11 this agenda or
57:11 non-agenda but hopefully as several board members have
57:15 referenced like we
57:16 only really saw that become a problem when the cameras got
57:19 turned off so if
57:20 the cameras are turned back on and it’s still going to be a part
57:23 of the board
57:23 meeting that the public can see that should hopefully stop that
57:27 and if it
57:27 doesn’t then we could readdress the policy we can we can go back
57:30 to the
57:30 drawing board if we need to just practically we even saw it
57:34 today we had
57:35 the gentleman from Ford and associates here waiting for the vote
57:37 on the tan had
57:39 to get to the meeting you know since we voted on that so because
57:42 that was a time
57:43 sensitive thing so if we have them combined and those kind of
57:46 people are
57:46 waiting and that’s not the only example when we have budget
57:50 questions Janice
57:52 Kershaw has been here before and we vote on anything for
57:54 particles Foundation
57:55 she’s here or her staff or different departmental people are
57:58 here in case we
57:59 ask a question on an item on the agenda those people are gonna
58:01 sit here and
58:02 wait until we get past that if we combine them back that was a
58:06 downside of
58:07 having them combined as all those people who were here business
58:11 waiting for a
58:12 vote on something on the agenda they have to stay until that
58:14 that happens in
58:15 case we were to pull it ask a question and whatever they’re here
58:19 as a resource
58:19 and I just want to be always wondering if their time and I hear
58:24 you and what I
58:24 would say to that is is if you have the agenda and non-agenda
58:27 before the meeting
58:28 in a time certain area and you would definitely know what your
58:31 time certain
58:31 is even with it is the way it is now you would still have time
58:35 certain being
58:36 disrupted so like if you had it before the meeting and you said
58:39 by the by this
58:40 time period we would start the meeting that’s actually a
58:42 stronger time certain
58:43 than it is before right well and I would mention if y’all if you
58:46 guys decide to
58:47 go that way I would say don’t do it for 30 5 o’clock at the
58:51 earliest and then
58:52 start the business meeting no you just start at 9 just the same
59:02 way mr. chair
59:02 so I just quick question if we turn that we do we need to I know
59:06 it’s the work
59:07 session we don’t normally make motions and things but to get the
59:09 cameras turned
59:10 back on immediately is that something we need to bring up at a
59:12 board meeting or
59:13 is that something that we can just I know I would say not and my
59:17 precedent is
59:18 the first time the board voted in 2021 2020 to turn the cameras
59:25 off we had so
59:26 much pushback this was before the lawsuit we never turned the
59:31 cameras off
59:31 and we’d already passed the policy and we voted every week until
59:35 we changed the
59:36 policy every meeting to leave the cameras on you remember that
59:39 Paul so I
59:40 think we have the right to that every single board meeting until
59:42 the policy is
59:43 yes that’s what you’re saying yep you have to vote to change
59:47 your policy over
59:49 right yeah right your policy for that means so my suggestion is
59:53 do it I agree
59:54 with Megan that’s why don’t we just leave it as as is as far as
59:58 turning on
59:58 the cameras at the end of the meeting leave I mean leave
1:00:00 everything else as is
1:00:01 let’s hear from the public over the next few weeks and get it
1:00:05 back on a work
1:00:06 session schedule if we need to as far as revising the rest of it
1:00:09 if we want to
1:00:09 make bigger changes that’s great but let’s see make this first
1:00:13 step and see
1:00:14 what the public thinks because the truth is you guys can do that
1:00:17 right while
1:00:18 we’re working towards it sounds like we’re least gonna want to
1:00:21 revise the
1:00:21 policy for the cameras but if the scenario happens you are I don’t
1:00:27 I don’t
1:00:27 know that you need to put those time limits three two or you
1:00:30 didn’t say one
1:00:31 but three minutes two minutes because like I just read you guys
1:00:33 look like you
1:00:34 actually have the authority to change that in extraordinary
1:00:36 circumstances the
1:00:38 board always retains that right only thing I’d want would like
1:00:41 to do if we’re
1:00:41 gonna revise the policies define what extraordinary
1:00:44 circumstances are so
1:00:45 because well either that or have because we don’t what you don’t
1:00:50 want but you
1:00:51 could have none of us say none of us are up here and we’re
1:00:54 making this for a
1:00:54 future future board you get back not to match the wildcard chair
1:01:00 that just
1:01:00 wants to change the rule if the board believes additional
1:01:08 modifications need to be made okay right like maybe a storm is
1:01:13 coming and we need
1:01:14 to quickly so everybody can go finish shuttering their house yes
1:01:18 in that case
1:01:19 make a choice do we know that yes it’s easier to say in a season
1:01:25 we don’t have
1:01:25 any storms am I hearing you guys say that you guys do not want
1:01:29 to try to look
1:01:30 at putting it to the front you just want to do it separate I
1:01:35 love your idea I
1:01:37 think just think it’s I like to hear from the public a little
1:01:39 bit and hear
1:01:40 that just think about it a little bit and see how wouldn’t you
1:01:42 know maybe get
1:01:43 some staff input and see how it all work I love the idea I love
1:01:46 the idea of the
1:01:47 community conversation too so both those are two great ideas
1:01:49 that came came out
1:01:50 of this and take a look at the the counties that’s doing that
1:01:53 guys reach
1:01:54 out to a board member there so you can see how it’s working so
1:01:57 right now you
1:01:59 guys want to let me just run through this just so that I know
1:02:03 the next board
1:02:04 meeting that we have we come back and discuss the agenda non
1:02:07 agenda in front
1:02:09 back whatever right how next workshop sorry yes how these
1:02:15 community town halls
1:02:16 are because everything else we’ve all everybody agreed to
1:02:19 strained everything
1:02:20 else just come back to the next workshop with it we like mr.
1:02:24 Thomas said
1:02:25 communicate to our you know stakeholders board members our
1:02:30 groups in the back
1:02:31 because there might be things that we don’t even know about that
1:02:34 might come up
1:02:34 but yes that’s great agreed on do we separate or do we put it
1:02:39 together at the
1:02:40 end of the day well right now it’s staying separate you can
1:02:43 continue on
1:02:43 then we just evaluate how that’s what I thought separate in
1:02:48 front or in back and
1:02:50 community town hall structure if we can kind of the next next
1:02:56 workshop yeah I do
1:02:57 have one logistical problem mr. chair I’m not here on October 6
1:03:00 which is the
1:03:01 next work session I believe did you want us okay it’ll be on the
1:03:05 agenda that
1:03:06 night John mr. Thomas did you want did you want us to delay it
1:03:10 to the next one
1:03:11 or did you want mr. Gibbs mr. Thomas could write us all an email
1:03:17 as long as
1:03:18 we don’t respond right given his he could turn his position into
1:03:21 me and I’ll
1:03:22 share it at the workshop it’s a workshop right okay I’ll do that’s
1:03:26 fine all right
1:03:27 so we’ll put it on the October 6 workshop and those three areas
1:03:30 is what
1:03:31 we’ll work anything it could whittle down then our what we’re
1:03:33 thinking as
1:03:34 well even if you’re not here you know you put what you think you
1:03:37 know between
1:03:37 now and then and then if we have a discussion on it’s not like
1:03:40 we’re voting
1:03:40 on it and then we’ll just have a better idea let’s try to make
1:03:43 this the idea
1:03:44 would be to bring some sort of something at the next meeting
1:03:46 after that together
1:03:47 combined okay all right you guys that’s good next one thank you
1:03:53 mr. Thomas for
1:03:54 bringing that forward next one is our laws this is mr. yeah at
1:04:04 the offside we
1:04:05 guys I just want to contract Mr. Gibbs I want to say I
1:04:08 appreciate everybody it
1:04:10 seems like a lot of people did a lot of research on this and put
1:04:13 a lot of
1:04:13 thought into it you know that mean so good job you guys
1:04:15 appreciate your work
1:04:17 and in actuality I think under these rules we’ll probably have
1:04:21 the most open
1:04:22 opportunities with the town halls that I think anybody has in
1:04:26 our County so good
1:04:27 job you guys all right mr. Gibbs at the off-site we brought to
1:04:30 you the contract
1:04:32 terms that we would like board direction on for just formatting
1:04:36 how we’re gonna
1:04:37 move forward what’s tier one two or three as far as the board’s
1:04:41 perceptions
1:04:41 are and provide some direction you asked for our recommendation
1:04:45 I worked with mr.
1:04:46 Heinz and procurement and we’ve put our recommendations for each
1:04:50 section on
1:04:51 there the ones that don’t have a recommendation is that just
1:04:54 because you
1:04:55 like we need the board’s direction there or because there’s a
1:04:57 couple like
1:04:58 out-of-state venue you there’s nothing yeah the comment is we
1:05:01 should just
1:05:02 follow the governing law so it’s gonna I think the out-of-state
1:05:06 venue would
1:05:07 follow the out-of-state governing law provision so okay if we’re
1:05:10 following
1:05:11 Tennessee law we’re gonna be in Tennessee venue whereas right
1:05:15 now we
1:05:15 have the situation I brought up where Florida law is being
1:05:18 administered by a
1:05:19 Tennessee judge it’s like that’s untenable right mr. Gibbs if I
1:05:26 may just
1:05:27 because I’m hearing you say you want us to go by each one of
1:05:29 these and give you
1:05:30 good direction yeah however you guys want to handle it you ask
1:05:34 for our
1:05:34 recommendation guys okay I think we can do that I just think
1:05:43 that like
1:05:44 officially like if he’s got this little chart here maybe we go
1:05:47 through them or
1:05:48 do you just say we recommend whatever your recommendations are
1:05:52 and then we put
1:05:53 these items we have to have I mean as far as this I think it
1:05:57 would be quick to
1:05:58 go through each one I mean we could do it in less than five
1:06:00 minutes but you had
1:06:01 questions yeah I’m fine with all the recommendations I just said
1:06:05 with with
1:06:06 exception of three and I may be fine with them I just want to
1:06:09 ask some
1:06:09 questions so hopefully mr. Gibson mr. Heinz got to look at this
1:06:13 but on the
1:06:13 second page towards the bottom it says data protection student
1:06:17 data confidential
1:06:19 information and it’s listed as a tier two and I wanted to know
1:06:23 what scenarios
1:06:24 would this be negotiable like depending on the vendor it’s
1:06:28 really vendor
1:06:28 specific like Sean responded to your mr. Heinz responded to you
1:06:32 like he did yeah
1:06:33 he responded to all three of your items and I didn’t feel the
1:06:36 need to respond
1:06:37 further but he noted like a lot of vendors depending on what it
1:06:41 is they’re
1:06:41 doing will request changes to our standard DPA which is a data
1:06:46 protection
1:06:46 agreement and we end up negotiating that back and forth that’s
1:06:50 why it’s a tier 2
1:06:51 because we already make those adjustments based on the vendor so
1:06:56 we
1:06:56 feel like it’s appropriate to continue to be able to have some
1:06:59 flexibility can
1:07:00 I ask mr. Heinz in the room I need him to send that to me again
1:07:05 because I’m
1:07:05 looking forward to you he sees and I I’m not seeing it okay and
1:07:12 then the just do
1:07:14 with that sorry board let me go back to my son and so what’s
1:07:20 good for us to have
1:07:20 this conversation the second question I had to do is right below
1:07:24 that was level
1:07:26 two screening background checks the Jessica Lunsford act
1:07:29 provision does this
1:07:30 have to be a tier one for a vendor that doesn’t serve in person
1:07:32 other words if
1:07:33 someone is making paper and I don’t really care if all their
1:07:37 employees are
1:07:38 background checked if they’re in Ohio and you’re buying their
1:07:43 paper it only
1:07:44 applies we only enforce it if they’re have people on site on
1:07:47 school with
1:07:48 children present okay gotcha and then the other question I had
1:07:54 to do with oh
1:07:55 on the top of the third page adding s.a.m. coverage yes - which
1:08:02 was sexual
1:08:03 assault and molestation same questions about we only do that if
1:08:08 it’s on-site
1:08:09 people right yeah that’s a risk area and it’s a coverage that
1:08:14 they said has
1:08:15 become more common and is relatively cheap okay so right now
1:08:18 they are
1:08:18 preferring it love the board support on requiring it for yet
1:08:23 people that are on
1:08:24 site like if we’re just buying software yeah I want that I want
1:08:28 that as tier one
1:08:29 for any anybody who’s anywhere close to our employees or schools
1:08:34 level two
1:08:35 obviously I just wanted to make sure that we’re not putting a
1:08:37 non-negotiable
1:08:38 on something that really doesn’t matter mr. Hines is in the room
1:08:41 now huh oh there
1:08:43 is I’m sorry I did not get your email I didn’t send you the
1:08:47 email actually I
1:08:49 just sent it to Paul just to have him look at the response and
1:08:51 see if there’s
1:08:52 anything we wanted to add I missed that part I’m sorry no I knew
1:08:56 you couldn’t be
1:08:56 wrong I was like I’m every now and then I accidentally delete an
1:09:00 email I want to
1:09:01 make sure okay I forwarded it to all of you know so oh so you
1:09:04 made a couple of
1:09:04 notes okay good thank you yeah that is that is where thank you
1:09:10 yeah don’t go
1:09:11 yeah yeah yeah so Paul answered the question about the Jessica Lunsford
1:09:16 act
1:09:16 and the sexual so that that is only with people who are on site
1:09:19 right that would
1:09:20 be too one non-negotiables okay I guess and explain more about
1:09:26 the data
1:09:26 protections and you gave an example of this contract can you
1:09:30 kind of give me
1:09:31 the Reader’s Digest version yeah so the data protection
1:09:36 agreement is pretty
1:09:37 extensive it’s developed outside of our public schools it’s not
1:09:42 our template we
1:09:43 use a statewide template the companies will have requests to
1:09:49 change some Paul
1:09:51 or some of the procedures that are kind of involved in it
1:09:53 because it’s more it
1:09:55 aligns with either the state they’re in or their policies we
1:09:59 generally make
1:10:00 concessions that do not affect how like the liability or the
1:10:04 risk to to BPS but
1:10:06 we don’t have problems making adjustments it’s kind of one of
1:10:09 those
1:10:09 things when we first started with the DPA we said no to all
1:10:13 changes but then
1:10:15 we found that it was difficult to contract with companies they
1:10:18 would
1:10:18 request changes so we started making a few concessions here and
1:10:21 there it’s kind
1:10:22 of grown a little bit we do kind of stay in our ground if we
1:10:25 feel that there is a
1:10:26 risk to us but we do that’s why they kind of exhibit H applies
1:10:32 to when
1:10:32 necessary okay so I just want to make sure because of you for
1:10:36 people who are
1:10:36 listening I’m not exactly sure so I want to make sure that we’re
1:10:39 leaving that at
1:10:40 a level two but we would not be sacrificing the security of
1:10:44 student data
1:10:46 employee data or opening ourselves up to risks of cyber attacks
1:10:51 and things like
1:10:52 that yes we will still include the DPA and make sure it doesn’t
1:10:56 okay the change
1:10:57 is just more of the way that it’s done yes okay the DPA was
1:11:00 developed by a
1:11:01 consortium for the state and the Florida School Board Attorneys
1:11:05 Association sent
1:11:06 members to help negotiate and draft that so it’s been approved I
1:11:11 think they’re on
1:11:11 their third iteration of it at the moment but it does it is like
1:11:17 50 pages
1:11:18 long so that’s what happens you get a bunch of attorneys
1:11:21 together but it is
1:11:23 also in response to statute so the statutory requirements are
1:11:27 not relented
1:11:28 on when we get those requests it’s usually something state-specific
1:11:31 sort of
1:11:32 like are you verify if it’s a Canadian company and they don’t
1:11:35 have any US
1:11:36 employees they can’t you verify their employees we will bend on
1:11:40 those okay
1:11:42 other other than that I’m good with everything that Paul
1:11:44 recommended and
1:11:45 Sean yeah I’m good with the recommendations I just have one that
1:11:47 I
1:11:47 want to just draw attention to the automatic renewal without
1:11:50 notice I
1:11:50 hundred percent I feel like that is yeah non-negotiable we do
1:11:55 not want that like
1:11:56 they absolutely must notify us if they’re going to automatically
1:12:00 renew any
1:12:00 type of contract so long-term contracts I feel like this one is
1:12:03 a little bit of
1:12:04 a slippery slope because sometimes that’s our advantage if we
1:12:06 can lock a
1:12:06 price in but sometimes it’s our disadvantage because we’re not
1:12:09 necessarily checking the prices on a routine basis if we have a
1:12:12 long-term
1:12:12 contract so I think the flexibility probably should be there to
1:12:15 some degree
1:12:16 I think right now we have it document and accept if necessary I
1:12:19 feel like that
1:12:21 one’s hard to say yes or no I’m just having the flexibility I
1:12:23 think is
1:12:23 important from the district standpoint because there may be
1:12:26 instances where we
1:12:26 recognize hey we’ve locked into a long-term contract and we
1:12:29 could actually
1:12:30 do better if we went out to price this and and solve you know
1:12:33 maybe the market
1:12:34 shifted in some arena or another so those are the only two that
1:12:39 I wanted to
1:12:39 comment on so what I’m hearing you guys from everybody is that
1:12:43 you guys are
1:12:43 everybody feels comfortable with the recommendations that mr.
1:12:47 Gibbs and mr.
1:12:48 Heinz brought forward you guys feel comfortable with these we
1:12:51 really
1:12:51 appreciate you taking the time to bring this to us because this
1:12:54 is an issue that
1:12:55 I deal with in other areas too so we as usual mr. Heinz I always
1:12:59 appreciate you
1:13:00 man for all the work that you do and thank you are we okay with
1:13:03 a board
1:13:03 consensus on that everybody good I’m good okay is there anything
1:13:08 else hang on
1:13:10 just a second here we go okay next one our first topic you guys
1:13:18 ready on this
1:13:19 one that’s what I thought okay well we’ll just stop goodness all
1:13:32 right all
1:13:32 right you guys that’s it thank you very much all right thank you
1:13:49 you