Updates on the Fight for Quality Public Education in Brevard County, FL
5:30 (upbeat music)
6:01 - Two.
6:03 - I call the October 27, 2026 work session to order.
6:06 Paul, roll call, please.
6:08 - Mr. Susan.
6:09 - Here.
6:10 - Ms. Wright.
6:11 - Here.
6:12 - Ms. Campbell.
6:12 - Here.
6:13 - Mr. Thomas.
6:14 - Here.
6:15 - Mr. Trent.
6:16 - Here.
6:17 - Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
6:19 - I pledge allegiance to the flag
6:21 of the United States of America
6:23 and to the Republic for which it stands,
6:26 one nation, under God, indivisible,
6:28 with liberty and justice for all.
6:35 - Dr. Endell, please provide an overview of today’s agenda.
6:38 - Thank you, Mr. Chair.
6:40 And we have several things to cover today,
6:41 order of business.
6:42 First is public hearing number one
6:44 on several proposed policy revisions.
6:47 Then two presentations from the security department,
6:50 the district best practices assessment,
6:53 and then the quarter one
6:54 school safety compliance inspections.
6:56 Then several topics for the board to discuss.
6:59 First is the proposed Greater Florida Consortium
7:02 of School Boards state and federal legislative platforms.
7:05 Then a follow-up discussion
7:06 on policy 0169.01 public comment policy.
7:11 Board discussion on the November 17th agenda.
7:14 Proposed parent 9130 meeting policy
7:17 and discussion on logo rights.
7:20 - First on our agenda,
7:21 we have the first public hearing on policy revisions.
7:24 We will, in accordance with Florida law, accept speakers.
7:28 Board policy review and rule development
7:30 on the following policies.
7:32 Policy 0124.
7:34 Is anybody here who wishes to address this item?
7:37 Is there anyone here who wishes to address this item?
7:44 All right.
7:45 Policy 2215, program of instruction.
7:48 Anyone here who wishes to address these items?
7:55 2280, physical education.
7:58 Is there anyone here who wishes to present these items?
8:01 Is there anyone here who wishes to address these items?
8:07 Policy 2370.01, virtual instruction.
8:10 Is there anyone present who wishes to address these items?
8:18 Okay.
8:19 Is there anybody who wishes to address any of these items
8:21 as I roll through so I can move quickly?
8:23 No?
8:24 Okay.
8:25 I’m gonna move quick.
8:26 - You still gotta say it.
8:27 - I do, but I wanted to make sure
8:28 that I didn’t miss when I’m reading it.
8:30 - I’m looking, so if I see a page on the wall, I’ll wait.
8:33 - I just didn’t wanna look up.
8:34 - If there’s a mad rush to the podium, I’ll let you know.
8:36 - Policy 2421, career and technical education.
8:38 Is there anyone present who wishes to address these items?
8:43 Policy 2431, interscholastic and interscholastic activities.
8:46 Is there anyone present who wishes to address these items?
8:50 Policy 2431.01, participation by transfer student.
8:54 Is there anyone present who wishes to address these items?
8:59 Policy 2450, adult community education.
9:01 Is there anyone present who wishes to address these items?
9:06 Policy 2460, exceptional student education.
9:08 Is there anyone present who wishes to address these items?
9:13 Policy 3120, employment of staff.
9:16 Is there anyone present who wishes to address these items?
9:20 Policy 3120.08, part-time extracurricular personnel.
9:25 Is there anyone present who wishes to address these items?
9:30 Policy 3130, is there anyone present
9:33 who wishes to address these items?
9:35 Is there anyone present who wishes to address these items?
9:38 Policy 3211, whistleblower protection.
9:41 Is there anyone present who wishes to address these items?
9:46 Policy 3220, evaluation of personnel.
9:48 Is there anyone present who wishes to address these items?
9:53 Policy 5223, absences for religious instruction.
9:57 Is there anyone present who wishes to address these items?
10:04 Oh, boy.
10:05 Policy 5330.01, anyone present who wishes
10:10 to address these items?
10:11 Anyone present who wishes to address these items?
10:15 Policy 5335, care of students with chronic health conditions.
10:18 Is there anyone present who wishes to address these items?
10:23 Policy 5410.01, promotion, acceleration,
10:26 placement, and retention.
10:28 Is there anyone present who wishes to address these items?
10:33 Policy 5430, class rank.
10:35 Is there anyone present who wishes to address these items?
10:39 Policy 5514, use of personal transportation devices.
10:43 Is there anyone present who wishes to address these items?
10:48 Policy 5780, student or parental rights.
10:51 Is there anyone present who wishes to address these items?
10:57 Policy 8810, the American flag,
10:59 the flag of the state of Florida,
11:00 the official motto of the state of Florida.
11:02 Is there anyone present who wishes to address these items?
11:04 Anyone present who wishes to address these items?
11:07 Policy 9215, school support organizations.
11:10 Is there anyone present who wishes to address these items?
11:16 All right, anyone present in here
11:18 that wishes to address any of those items
11:20 that I might have, that may have missed something?
11:22 No, we’re good, all right.
11:23 We’ll begin with two presentations
11:24 from Ms. Scott Rosenfeld, district school security.
11:28 Mr. Rosenfeld.
11:46 (paper rustling)
12:14 - Good morning, board members, Dr. McDowell.
12:16 Scott Rosenfeld, district school safety coordinator.
12:20 - Yeah, hang on, I’m sorry, hang on.
12:22 - Can you hear me now?
12:23 - Yeah. - Okay.
12:25 So I have two presentations.
12:28 First one is district best practices.
12:30 Both are mandated by state statute.
12:38 The purpose of the Florida Safe Schools
12:40 district best practices assessment
12:41 is to assist districts in meeting the requirements
12:44 for school safety and security
12:46 as outlined in state law and rule.
12:49 In conjunction with the school security risk assessments
12:52 completed for each public school,
12:54 both traditional and chartered,
12:55 this tool is intended for use by district school officials
12:58 to help identify threats, vulnerabilities,
13:01 and appropriate safety controls
13:03 for the schools they supervise.
13:07 Florida state statute, based on the assessment findings,
13:10 the district school safety specialist
13:12 shall provide recommendations to the district school,
13:15 superintendent, and the district school board,
13:17 which identify strategies and activities
13:19 that the district school board should implement
13:21 in order to address the findings
13:23 and improve school safety and security.
13:28 So this is essentially,
13:31 every school does a very in-depth school risk assessment,
13:36 and it’s due by September 1,
13:39 and we take the results from all of those risk assessments,
13:44 and we put these best practices together.
13:47 So the positive school measures,
13:48 now keep in mind this is from last school year,
13:52 communication and access control,
13:54 the implementation of the Raptor emergency management tools,
13:59 ELISA’s law compliance, that’s the critical alerts,
14:03 mobile application and wearable alert capabilities,
14:05 emergency and critical drill management,
14:07 and then eventually reunification management.
14:11 The PA intercom upgrades are almost complete,
14:13 AI phone intercoms in all front offices,
14:16 and secondary school media center access control upgrades
14:20 are almost complete.
14:23 Behavioral and community safety,
14:25 Fortify Florida and Speak Out,
14:28 which is essentially crime line reporting tools are active.
14:31 School-based threat management teams
14:33 are trained and certified,
14:35 and we have five therapy canines
14:37 that are embedded in the schools.
14:39 Additionally, we have one firearm detection canine
14:42 and two narcotic detection canines
14:44 that are also certified in therapy.
14:48 Physical security measures,
14:50 portable weapon detection at all high schools,
14:53 and now we’re currently rolling out
14:55 the middle school implementation.
14:57 Hardened vestibules across all campuses,
15:00 upgraded automatic classroom door locks
15:02 in progress as needed,
15:03 new eight-foot non-scalable perimeter fencing,
15:06 site-specific, impact-resistant window film installed,
15:11 site-specific, perforated window film installed,
15:15 and those are the ones with the graphics, logos,
15:19 and infilling certain windows, filling in the windows.
15:25 Preparedness and protocols,
15:26 critical incident and fire drills
15:27 completed to comply with Florida state statute.
15:30 School emergency operations plan,
15:33 we call that CEOP, submitted on time, all of them.
15:36 Annual school risk assessments submitted on time.
15:39 The superintendent’s mandatory security procedures,
15:43 his directive implemented,
15:45 and school unification plans are updated
15:47 to include precise topographical mapping,
15:50 and I wanna give a commendation to Agent Joe Martin,
15:54 who worked four months putting these maps together
15:57 for all the schools.
15:58 He did a fantastic job.
16:03 These are the most common requests across all schools.
16:08 Fencing and gates, perimeter fence and gate replacement.
16:12 Many of our schools just have dilapidated fencing
16:15 and overgrown vegetation that’s pushing on the fences.
16:18 Taller non-scalable fencing and gates
16:20 to secure vulnerable areas of building ingress and egress,
16:24 and that would be along the perimeter
16:26 closer to the school itself.
16:30 Video surveillance systems,
16:32 additional coverage for blind spots,
16:34 playgrounds, and parking areas.
16:36 I know parking areas and out by the ball fields
16:38 is a little more difficult
16:40 because we don’t use Bluetooth or Wi-Fi.
16:43 It would have to be hardwired in.
16:44 That’s a little bit of a challenge.
16:47 Communication, two-way radio repeaters.
16:50 When I say two-way radios,
16:51 we’re not talking about the 800 megahertz,
16:53 those $6,000, $7,000 radios that all law enforcement
16:55 and the security specialists have.
16:58 These are just the walkie-talkies.
17:00 We should probably have
17:01 some universal consistent walkie-talkies in the future,
17:05 but the two-way radio repeaters,
17:07 the schools that don’t have these repeaters,
17:09 and I believe these are like $5,000, $6,000 items.
17:14 If you don’t have those,
17:16 you have no signal in many of the other buildings,
17:19 so it’s tough to communicate,
17:21 and you’re having to communicate by text
17:23 or call the landline, so these are pretty important.
17:26 Two-way radio repeaters to boost range on campus
17:29 and improve reliability.
17:33 Access control, badge readers, electronic locks,
17:36 remote access systems, and the window covering,
17:41 the security film on vulnerable exterior-facing windows
17:44 and the perforated film for visibility control.
17:49 And these are the recommendations that we provide to you.
17:54 Reinforce physical security,
17:56 replace the perimeter fencing and gates,
17:59 install non-scalable fencing
18:01 surrounding the building exteriors, and window hardening,
18:04 and we’re still in the process of this,
18:06 the impact-resistant film and the infilling of windows
18:10 and raising smaller windows up six feet or above,
18:14 which allows some natural lighting.
18:18 Strengthen communication and technology,
18:20 the two-way radio repeaters
18:21 for enhanced radio signal coverage,
18:24 upgrades to intercom systems for full campus coverage
18:27 and integration with Raptor systems,
18:29 additional access control systems,
18:32 and security camera improvements and additions.
18:37 And then, of course, secure funding
18:38 to pursue state and federal hardening grants.
18:44 Now, at the end of this very lengthy
18:47 district best practices assessment that I complete,
18:51 as well as many other facets of the school board,
18:55 the last two questions, or the last two sections,
18:58 are these, I don’t know if you can see them,
19:00 your screens are not in front, can you see that?
19:02 You can see, okay, it comes up there?
19:04 Okay, I put the answer to last year’s,
19:08 to give you an example, it’s a very simple answer,
19:11 but this is what I have to complete the assessment,
19:15 and then send it to the Office of Safe Schools.
19:19 So, provide any recommendations by the district school board
19:23 for the Department of Education to consider,
19:25 recommending to the Governor, Florida Legislature,
19:28 and State Board of Education regarding policy changes
19:30 or funding needed to facilitate continued
19:34 school safety planning improvement and response
19:37 at the state, district, and school levels.
19:39 So, the answer that you gave last year,
19:41 or the response, was increased state funding
19:43 for school safety and security initiatives.
19:46 So, I need something to fill in the blank.
19:48 - We like that, that still stands.
19:50 - Yeah.
19:51 - Well, let me ask this, and Dr. Endell,
19:53 this is maybe a you and your team question,
19:55 but I feel like on legislative platforms
19:57 in the last couple years we’ve asked for more ability
20:01 to coordinate across the state, you know,
20:04 if we have a kid who comes in from another district,
20:06 that the systems don’t always communicate well
20:08 to each other, is that still something that gets in the way?
20:11 - No, that has been resolved.
20:13 - Okay.
20:14 - National, I mean, a statewide database,
20:15 and it’s updated.
20:16 - Okay, I know we had that on our request before,
20:18 so good to know that sometimes, you know, they do listen.
20:21 So, I’m fine with leaving this on here,
20:23 ‘cause that’s honestly, with all those things
20:25 that you listed, every single one of them will cost me.
20:27 - I was thinking the same thing, I’m going,
20:29 oh, that’s expensive, that’s expensive.
20:30 Yeah, I think honestly, increasing the funding
20:33 for school safety is the number one recommendation.
20:36 - Yeah.
20:37 - Board, you agree?
20:38 - I agree.
20:42 - Okay, and what area could be improved
20:45 to enhance the program’s effectiveness last year?
20:49 The response was improve campus access control technology
20:51 to align with new state requirements.
20:55 - I feel like we’ve done a pretty good job with that
20:56 from what you just said.
20:58 - Yeah, I would recommend the same.
21:00 - Yep.
21:00 - The same answer again this year, the same statement.
21:03 - Okay.
21:04 - Yep, sounds good.
21:06 - That was easy.
21:07 - Yeah.
21:08 - Okay.
21:09 - And then any other questions before I move on
21:12 to the second presentation?
21:13 - Yeah, I just had one, as I’ve gone around
21:16 and visiting some schools in the last couple of weeks.
21:19 I know that a lot of the things that you suggested
21:21 are actually in the sales tax plan.
21:23 Some of them are ones from the 2020 plan
21:26 that we just haven’t gotten to yet,
21:27 but some of them are in the plan that sued for 2026
21:31 if the voters pass it next week.
21:33 But, and I know cameras and things are very expensive,
21:36 but can, now that you’ve gotten here,
21:38 if we have the opportunity to reevaluate
21:43 the location of the cameras,
21:45 can we have District Security, your team,
21:50 you are a team of one, take a look at that
21:53 because even while we may not be able
21:55 to buy a lot more cameras, it would probably be good
21:57 to review the strategic placement of where they are.
22:00 Are they in the best places, and ask each principal
22:04 where are you having problems
22:05 that doesn’t have the coverage that you need?
22:07 That would be my request.
22:09 - Okay, sure, we can work with all the SROs,
22:12 the principals, the rest of our District Security team,
22:15 and of course the vendors.
22:16 We don’t just get up on ladders and move ‘em ourselves,
22:18 we have to do that. - Right.
22:19 - So that’s– - Yeah, and to be fair,
22:22 one of the things that Scott talked about
22:24 was the annual assessment. - Right.
22:28 - The school in conjunction with security
22:30 and local law enforcement conducted an assessment annually
22:33 of the entire building and all the different facets
22:36 of security, and the cameras is part of it.
22:37 - Yeah. - You look at
22:39 where the cameras are and would you want more cameras
22:41 or are they moved, so it’s part of the annual assessment.
22:43 - I know they probably all want more.
22:45 - But of course they, yeah, if you could have enough, yeah.
22:48 - Mr. Chair? - Yes, sir.
22:50 - Just a quick question, not really pertaining exactly
22:53 to the presentation, I’m just curious,
22:55 do you know of any districts around the state
22:57 or maybe even around the country
22:59 that outsource private security as far as for like
23:03 the entry and exit points for the metal detectors,
23:06 watching the perimeter during the day,
23:07 not in place of an SRO, but is there,
23:10 I know that’s a hefty cost, I’m just curious
23:12 if that’s ever done in any other districts you’re aware of.
23:17 - We actually have some of our charter schools
23:20 that do that currently here in this district.
23:22 I believe one is unarmed and just handles
23:25 the weapons detection as they come in.
23:29 And a couple of the others have private security,
23:32 they still train, right, do they still train with us
23:35 for firearms and to make sure they have
23:36 the active assailant training and so forth,
23:38 but they’re private security.
23:40 But I could certainly look into other districts.
23:43 - I was just curious because obviously my biggest concern
23:47 is for the, especially for the, when the kids are coming
23:50 into school, doing the metal detectors,
23:53 having teachers monitoring it or even administrators,
23:57 it’s just in a perfect world, it’d be nice
23:59 to have law enforcement or at least a version
24:01 of some kind of security, trained security personnel
24:04 doing it, so I’m just curious if that was done anywhere.
24:09 - I’ll look further into it.
24:10 We actually have a conference that we’re going to,
24:12 a school safety conference with Raptor.
24:15 So our colleagues will be there and we’ll have
24:17 that discussion next week.
24:19 - Awesome. - Yeah.
24:20 - Thank you.
24:21 Anybody else?
24:24 All right, next presentation.
24:25 - Next presentation.
24:27 - Do I move right in, does it have to be announced?
24:29 I just go? - Go.
24:30 - Okay. - You can announce it.
24:46 It’s a little bit loud, no scandal.
24:49 - Sorry. (laughing)
24:53 - Okay, this is our first quarter
24:54 school safety compliance inspections.
24:56 This one’s only a couple of slides.
24:59 Per Florida state statute, the school safety special
25:02 shall present quarterly reports to the school board
25:04 in a public meeting identifying the number
25:06 and percentage of schools, including charter schools
25:09 inspected or re-inspected during that quarter
25:11 and the number and percentage of inspected schools
25:14 that had no school safety requirement deficiencies.
25:18 This is from the Office of Safe Schools.
25:20 I met her one day, she came one day for Brevard so far,
25:25 so there’s only three.
25:26 So the office shall conduct unannounced inspections
25:29 of all public schools, including charter schools,
25:31 while school is in session, triennially,
25:33 and investigate reports of noncompliance
25:35 with school safety requirements.
25:37 So three schools visited, no charters.
25:40 I know I was asked last meeting to specifically
25:44 discuss charters, so no charters in this visit.
25:47 A number of schools with no safety requirement deficiencies
25:51 were two, that’s 66%, and one had a deficiency
25:57 and that was actually an unlocked door.
25:59 It was a door that was not closing properly.
26:03 And again, I will give commendation here
26:05 to Director Jim Ross, I believe.
26:08 Is that the director over the plan?
26:11 - Yes. - Okay, so I’ve had
26:14 discussions with him, I said I don’t call,
26:16 I don’t use my phone of friends very often,
26:19 but if I call you in the middle of a state inspection,
26:22 it’s pretty serious, please have your guys come out.
26:25 Within two hours, they came and shaved down the door
26:28 and made it close properly.
26:29 However, the state is not as flexible as the district.
26:33 They noted it as noncompliant.
26:36 They had this fixed before she pulled out of the lot.
26:39 So it’s taken care of, however, they do need
26:41 to come back out within six months and do a re-inspection
26:44 and it’ll check other doors as well.
26:46 But that was a fantastic job and how quick to come out
26:50 within two hours and have that taken care of.
26:52 Yeah, but I don’t do that often,
26:55 ‘cause that’ll be, I don’t wanna cry wolf.
26:59 Okay, these were my inspections between,
27:03 I didn’t start inspecting ‘til about mid-August.
27:05 They have 10 days to conduct an active assailant drill,
27:08 so I wouldn’t come out before that.
27:10 So from mid-August ‘til the end of September,
27:13 I did 31 schools, so conduct annual unannounced inspections
27:17 using the form adopted by the Office of Safe Schools,
27:20 pursuant to Florida statute of all public schools,
27:22 including charters, while school is in session
27:25 and investigate reports of noncompliance
27:27 with school safety requirements.
27:30 31, that was including seven charter schools.
27:35 No deficiencies, that’s 100%, zero deficiencies, zero%.
27:42 So they were fantastic, they’ve done a great job.
27:45 We’re still working through some issues,
27:47 but as far as the compliance inspection, 100% compliance.
27:53 - Love that. - Yeah.
27:55 - Quick question, these are surprise visits, right?
27:58 - Yeah, yes ma’am, unannounced.
28:00 - And you are required to do one for each school per year?
28:05 - Yes ma’am. - Okay, thank you.
28:07 Good job. - Anybody else?
28:09 - Mr. Chair, I’d just like to add the fact
28:11 that the state has only come one day
28:13 and inspected three of our schools is actually an indication
28:17 that they’re confident that we are doing things right.
28:20 If they had any question on whether we were doing things
28:24 right, they would be here more than once, so.
28:28 - Yep. - Good work, thank you.
28:30 - Thank you for your time. - All right.
28:32 All right, our second topic is follow-up discussion
28:35 on Policy 0169.01, does anybody wish to discuss
28:38 any of the topics that are there?
28:40 - Are we ever doing a consortium?
28:42 - Yeah, we’re in the consortium.
28:43 - Oh yeah, okay, sure.
28:45 We’ll now move on to our first discussion topic,
28:47 the proposed GFS or CSB 2027
28:51 state and federal legislative programs.
28:53 Anybody wish to kind of weigh in?
28:59 - I didn’t see anything just glaring.
29:02 The federal one is pretty much just asking for more funding.
29:06 And the state one, I did look down under,
29:13 where is it, on the state one,
29:16 which is the last attachment board under academics,
29:20 which is on page four.
29:23 Under number one, the one, two, three, fourth bullet,
29:26 it says eliminate the standalone statewide ELA writing test.
29:31 Is that something that we…
29:33 would be in favor of. I’m seeing a – I don’t know. I just – I
29:38 mean, I know where everybody’s
29:38 like less testing, less testing, but I just don’t know if there’s
29:41 something positive that
29:42 we get out of that if we want to stand with our fellow board
29:45 members across the state
29:47 and say get rid of the – I mean, it doesn’t factor into
29:50 accountability. Would you mind
29:54 if Ms. Harris can –
29:55 » Yeah, Ms. Harris can come up, but –
29:56 » Okay, if she’s willing to do that. I don’t know if you have
29:58 input, Mr. – Dr. Endell.
29:59 » And then, Dr. Endell, I’d like to hear your weigh in on some
30:01 of this stuff.
30:02 » Yeah, I’ll let Tara talk about the test itself, but then I’ll
30:07 –
30:07 » Okay.
30:08 » Because I don’t see a need to remove that from the platform.
30:12 » Okay.
30:13 » But –
30:14 » Okay.
30:15 » It’s not like it used to be where it’s part of the
30:18 accountability system, and we
30:19 do have writing opportunities already built into our
30:22 instructional pacing guide. So that’s
30:24 why I say it’s not – you know, there are some things that if
30:27 they asked our opinion
30:29 we’d be like yes, we need more flexibility there. For that
30:34 element alone, it is a day
30:37 of testing where they take the writing assessment, but it is a
30:42 one-time shot of writing. It does
30:45 give us some information, but we get very little – it’s not
30:49 calculated into the specific
30:51 ELA score.
30:52 » Right. So we’re not really getting a great benefit from it.
30:54 » I will tell you from a teacher standpoint, because we have
30:57 writing opportunities built
30:59 in, teachers can see – because we do want students to be able
31:01 to communicate through
31:03 writing, and the highest way of comprehension is if you can
31:06 write about it. So we have that
31:07 embedded. So as a teacher, I’m getting that data – I’m not
31:10 waiting until an assessment
31:11 in May to get that data from my students.
31:14 » Yeah. So then eliminating the ELA test –
31:16 » Correct. So again, the question is if we want to remove any
31:20 of these.
31:20 » Yeah.
31:21 » And we’re not in favor of removing it.
31:23 » Right. Okay.
31:24 » Of the bullet, which means we are in favor of eliminating the
31:27 test.
31:27 » Eliminating the test.
31:28 » Right. Right. Right. Okay. I just want to make sure – I
31:30 appreciate that input.
31:31 » Yep.
31:32 » Thank you.
31:33 » Dr. Endell, did you – you and I were looking at them before.
31:34 Did you have anything
31:35 that you wanted to weigh in on?
31:36 » No. There was nothing I needed asked or would want us to
31:39 change with either platform.
31:41 » Okay.
31:42 » There’s a couple things that I think are – they’re not going
31:45 to come to fruition anyway.
31:46 » Right.
31:47 » So –
31:48 » I feel the same way.
31:49 » – they’re fine being on there, but – because the more you
31:50 ask – the more times you ask,
31:51 over time, eventually you might get that.
31:53 » Yeah.
31:54 » You know, some of these are not going to happen this year.
31:56 » They’re pies in the skies. I get it.
31:57 » Well, it’ll take a little while to build some momentum.
32:00 » Yep.
32:01 » Yeah.
32:02 » Does everybody else feel the same way?
32:03 » Yeah.
32:04 » Yes, sir.
32:05 » Okay.
32:06 » Yeah.
32:07 » So can we ask someone to communicate with the consortium that
32:09 –
32:09 » It may.
32:10 » Yep. We’ll do that.
32:11 » Yeah.
32:12 » I was down at their meeting, like, a month ago that you made
32:16 me go to.
32:17 » Yeah. Whatever.
32:18 » Yeah.
32:19 » And the second topic is a follow-up discussion on Policy 0169.01,
32:23 public comment. Does anybody
32:24 wish to address it? I think it’s moving forward.
32:26 » Mr. Chair?
32:27 » Yes, sir.
32:28 » So I just want to thank the board for – I know you minimized
32:30 the discussion when I was
32:32 out of town last meeting, so I could have some input. So I just
32:37 would like to present
32:39 my thoughts on it and see what you guys think.
32:42 » Absolutely.
32:43 » So my reason for kind of bringing this up to begin with is
32:46 just to make sure that
32:47 we have a fair policy, it’s transparent, and make sure it’s
32:52 efficient. And so I’d like
32:54 to propose the following. Combine the agenda and non-agenda
32:58 public comment into one public
32:59 comment period. Place the public comment period near the
33:02 beginning of the meeting, immediately
33:04 before the consent agenda. Livestream and archive the entire
33:07 public comment period as
33:09 part of the meeting. Establish a one-hour period for public
33:12 comment with the following
33:13 speaking times. Fifteen speakers or fewer, three minutes per
33:18 speaker. Sixteen or more
33:19 speakers, two minutes per speaker. And allow the board the
33:24 discretion to extend the overall
33:25 public comment period when the number of speakers would
33:27 otherwise prevent everyone who has signed
33:29 up from having an opportunity to speak. And that’s kind of it.
33:33 Just kind of –
33:33 » Say that last one again, Joe.
33:36 » Allowing the board the discretion to extend the overall
33:39 public comment period when the
33:40 number of speakers who otherwise prevent everyone has, you know,
33:43 hasn’t had a chance to sign
33:45 up and speak.
33:46 » Yeah. It usually goes without saying.
33:48 » That’s what I put in the email, exactly what I put in the
33:50 email before I left that
33:52 day.
33:53 » And I appreciate your – I mean, when this conversation came
33:55 up, I thought, we need to
33:56 have you here because you’ve led this initiative and I would
33:58 have felt horrible if we would
33:59 have moved forward with passing a policy you didn’t get a chance
34:01 to weigh in on, even though
34:01 you gave us that, but I didn’t know if the conversation was
34:04 going to steer your direction
34:05 on wanting something different other than that.
34:07 » Thank you.
34:08 » I – board, I would be in favor of keeping the policy exactly
34:11 like it is, just turn the
34:12 cameras on at the end. I think that’s the easiest solution,
34:15 quite frankly. We haven’t
34:16 seen an instance really in some time where we’ve had a number of
34:19 public speakers that
34:20 have come before us and really I think until the last meeting
34:24 prior to – Ms. Fulton, you
34:25 were the one that brought forward something that made us kind of
34:28 go, uh-oh, on an agenda
34:29 item. I like hearing the public’s comments on things that we’re
34:32 going to be voting on
34:33 right away. I think that’s important. Obviously, that’s required
34:37 by law, too. But I think the
34:38 non-agenda public comments going to the end is beneficial just
34:42 for the nature of what
34:43 they have been, right? A lot of times it’s not necessarily about
34:46 anything that we’re
34:47 going to vote on or govern on right at that moment. It’s about
34:51 something else that will
34:52 require – sometimes it’s controversial, sometimes it’s, you
34:55 know, they want to attack you for
34:57 three minutes publicly, whatever it is. That’s fine. But I think
35:00 that’s the easiest solution
35:03 rather than trying to set limits. And then I guess if we see an
35:05 issue in the future where
35:06 we have a whole bunch of people that are coming forward, the
35:08 Board can always impose that
35:09 or make a recommendation to limit the amount of time allotted to
35:13 speakers if we had a hundred
35:14 people here to speak on a certain subject matter, you know? And
35:18 for the nature of keeping
35:19 it the simplest, I think that that’s what I would propose.
35:22 » Mr. Chair?
35:23 » Yes, sir.
35:24 » So I don’t disagree and, I mean, I would not object to that.
35:28 My only reason why – my
35:29 only thought about combining the two was so there’s no dispute
35:33 about – somebody doesn’t
35:34 want to have to wait until the end of the meeting so they try to
35:37 slide it in during
35:38 the public comment and then we go through the whole deciding
35:40 whether it’s a public comment
35:42 or an agenda comment or not. And so just thought it might
35:45 simplify things to put it all together
35:47 in one and that way we don’t have –
35:48 » That’s true. I mean, so would your proposal be just a three-minute
35:51 period whether it’s
35:52 agenda or non-agenda?
35:53 » Correct.
35:54 » My proposal actually gives them six minutes.
35:55 » I agree.
35:56 » And obviously I’ve asked and my limited number of people I’ve
36:00 asked in the community
36:01 about that because I thought that actually would be an issue and
36:04 nobody has raised it.
36:05 They said that usually it’s – somebody has something to say,
36:07 they can do it in the three
36:08 minutes. So that’s not – at least not for the people I’ve
36:12 talked to an issue by combining
36:14 it.
36:15 » Yeah, I mean, you bring a good point up there.
36:17 » And we’ve only had – this is only – this morning was only
36:19 our second meeting that we
36:20 turned the cameras back on so it’s kind of hard to tell if the
36:22 impact, you know, of SPART.
36:24 But we haven’t had to argue with people. But whether it’s agenda
36:29 or non-agenda, I think
36:30 that did – I think that will go a long way to solving the
36:33 problem. But I have to point
36:34 out, of course, the next board meeting will be the December one
36:37 when you have all those
36:38 5,000 policies that we just went through. It’s going to take a
36:41 long time. But generally
36:43 over the last year or two, the time between the – once we get
36:47 down to business and we’re
36:48 voting on consent and the action and the time the non – it’s
36:52 like five minutes, maybe ten
36:53 minutes, depending on what’s on the agenda, but generally – but
36:56 we do sometimes have
36:57 people waiting, waiting for papers to be signed, waiting for –
37:02 to be there. We’ve had foreign
37:03 associates here to answer questions and they have to sit through
37:06 all the things until we
37:06 can vote on their item and then they go. So I think – I still
37:10 think it’s wise to stay
37:11 with agenda, non-agenda, and it does keep you – give people
37:15 another shot. But just
37:16 I – you know, I’m not – won’t be the one voting on it, but I
37:19 think I recommend going
37:20 with exactly what we talked about last meeting, which we’ve put
37:23 into practice already and
37:25 with what Ms. Wright said is just turn the cameras back on. And
37:29 then we clarify that
37:30 we do have the authority in the policy as it is to make whatever
37:33 adjustments that we
37:34 should deem necessary in extreme circumstances. I agree with the
37:39 splitting it and keeping
37:42 it that way. And I’ll tell you, my version is that we have a lot
37:45 of people – and they
37:47 were in the crowd today – that come for our business meeting
37:50 and they’re here as individuals
37:51 that have their agenda items up and everything else. And I would
37:56 like to just keep that specific
37:58 to it and then have the non-agenda afterwards. It gives them the
38:01 opportunity to speak twice.
38:03 That’s my take on it. There’s a couple other reasons to keep
38:05 them separate. But the other
38:06 thing is is that I agree with, you know, turning them on at the
38:11 end, establishing a one-hour
38:13 framework, I like that. Because although we haven’t had the
38:16 issue, Katie and I have gone
38:19 through some – I mean, there was a 14-hour meeting one time.
38:22 And so I do believe – and
38:24 thank you for bringing that forward. It does give everybody the
38:27 opportunity. And we can
38:28 always – like, if there’s something like that, we’re not going
38:30 to hold them all. They’re
38:31 not going to hold, like, 100 speakers to, you know, 10 seconds
38:34 or whatever, but we can
38:35 extend it. But it gives us the opportunity to kind of keep it
38:38 condensed. And then I think
38:41 that’s – » Can I ask a point of clarification? » Yeah, yeah,
38:43 yeah. » Are you suggesting
38:44 that we do the timeframe, institute the timeframe for both
38:47 public – I mean, agenda items and
38:49 non-agenda items so that there’s a timeframe for both of them?
38:52 » Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
38:53 » Okay. » Yeah, that’s it. » So, like, just the overall –
38:55 sorry. Just the overall
38:57 hour for – hour – » One hour for agenda and an hour for non-agenda.
39:01 Is that what you’re
39:02 suggesting? » And the board can adjust as needed to fit into
39:05 the hour? » Yes, ma’am.
39:06 » I’m not opposed to doing that. I don’t see – » This gives
39:10 us the opportunity. Yep.
39:12 Works for me. I’m good there. » Mr. Chair, could I ask a point
39:14 of clarification? If you’re
39:15 going to limit the amount of time, do we need to cut off your
39:19 ability to sign up to speak
39:21 at a certain point so that we can determine whether we have more
39:25 speakers – » Sometimes
39:27 people get up there and they talk for a minute and a half, you
39:29 know? » Yeah, it’s a Mr.
39:30 Gibbs question. It’s, like, if we’re going to say it, we’re
39:32 going to limit the amount
39:33 of time. » Mr. Gibbs, how fast can you do math? » I don’t
39:37 usually get it till late,
39:39 so sometimes it’s, like, right up to the speaking, so we might
39:43 need to take a recess. But, I
39:45 mean, it’s usually pretty easy. For the most part, most of our
39:48 meetings are ten or less,
39:49 so it’s always going to be three minutes. » So in the event
39:51 that we have 20 or more
39:52 people or whatever it is, you can just say, hey, guys, we’ve got
39:54 a higher number, I just
39:55 need to take a recess to figure it all out. » Yeah, just give
39:57 me two minutes or something,
39:58 yeah. » And that wouldn’t have happened for the last two years.
40:01 » Do we need to have
40:01 a set time in policy that says that, you know, so if somebody
40:06 shows up beyond that, whatever
40:08 that time is, that they’re not able to participate because they’re
40:12 at some point? » Yeah, right
40:14 now it is when public comment starts. So, yeah, when the first
40:17 public comment starts
40:19 for agenda is it gets cut off. » That’s been helpful because it
40:24 gives people, if they don’t
40:26 get here – because it used to be when the meeting starts, right?
40:28 So it gives them another
40:29 30 minutes, usually, at least. That’s – I think that’s been
40:31 helpful, and I would hang
40:32 on to that for the people who – we talked about bus drivers
40:35 before, they can’t get here
40:36 on time, traffic, whatever. » All right. Okay. All right. I
40:40 feel pretty comfortable.
40:42 If you want me to review it, keep the policy separated,
40:46 institute a time frame on the agenda
40:49 and non-agenda, and turn the lights and camera on for the non-agenda
40:52 at the end. » Just
40:53 leave the camera on, right? » Leave the camera on, yeah. »
40:56 Yeah. » Yeah. » Yep. All right.
40:57 So then when we get criticized in the public about not being
41:00 transparent, we can actually
41:01 – we’ve given the opportunity to speak more so than when I got
41:04 on the board, where they
41:05 were only given three minutes, public comment was three minutes,
41:07 it was agenda, non-agenda,
41:08 but at this point we now will have given more time to speak and
41:11 address. » And just to clarify,
41:13 we’re talking about live streaming and recording it, correct? »
41:15 Correct. » So the whole thing
41:16 – yeah, yeah, no difference? » Yes. » All right. We good? »
41:20 Yes, that sounds great.
41:23 » Okay. Our next topic is the board’s discussion of the
41:26 November 17th, 2026 agenda. Anybody
41:29 have anything to talk about that? » Mr. Chair, what it is is we
41:33 have a list of committees
41:34 and insurance on those committees. » Yep. » And also the
41:39 calendar meetings for the
41:40 coming year, and we didn’t know if the board wanted to review
41:43 that now, because theoretically
41:44 this would be the only time we’d review for the 17th. » To give
41:48 the – » We didn’t do
41:49 that. This is something we did last year. » Right. I think it
41:55 would be helpful at least
41:57 for those of us who have done the roles to kind of report back,
41:59 because sometimes we
42:00 have taken the time to trim the list down, because maybe it’s
42:04 actually defunct. And then
42:07 because we have that, we had talked about doing a meeting on
42:10 November 10th with the
42:11 – whoever gets elected. It’s kind of an onboarding thing. I
42:13 think it would probably be good to
42:15 bring it back up at that point. But just by way of input, I
42:18 would say there was – I haven’t
42:23 gotten any feedback. So Brevard Cultural Alliance had a change
42:26 of leadership back in the late
42:28 spring, early summer, and I have not even gotten any calendar
42:31 invites after that. And
42:32 I even emailed them and said, hey, do you still want a school
42:34 board liaison? I wonder
42:35 if in their charter that they have to have one, but if they –
42:38 we need to get some communication.
42:40 So if someone from your office, Lina, whoever, can reach out and
42:45 just say, hey, do you – one,
42:47 are you required to have a school board representative? If you’re
42:50 not – if you are, you need to start
42:51 sending invitations, because I just don’t want to – I feel like
42:55 it’s not – why appoint
42:56 people if you’re not even going to have them there? And the
42:59 other one that I would say,
43:02 the Palm Bay Youth Advisory Board, we just leave that up in case
43:04 they ever revive it,
43:04 but I think we could probably – that’s easy, because it’s
43:07 always our district, so leave
43:09 that on there. But the Brevard Continuum of Care, I never was
43:12 reached out to or had a
43:14 point of contact. I’m not – I think that was you that put that
43:16 on there, but I don’t
43:17 know if we want to keep that on there if there’s not been any
43:19 kind of communication. So –
43:21 » I don’t know why – we’d have to find out why they’re not
43:23 communicating, because they
43:24 usually – they don’t mean often, but I think they mean every
43:27 quarter or so.
43:27 » Okay. So maybe it’s just better, like, knowing who the person
43:31 is, but I didn’t do
43:32 – I had actually forgotten that I was on that, and it –
43:34 because I never heard anything
43:35 else about it. So that would be my input on those particular –
43:38 » I’ll make sure that Ms. Foranoe has the contact information.
43:42 » Okay. » And then she can find out if they want
43:45 to do it or not. » Yeah. So we can reach out to those two
43:48 before November 10th. » Yeah. There’s – I agree. There’s a
43:53 couple
43:53 that – there’s, like, the Palm Bay Youth Advisory Board. I was
43:57 going to create those,
43:59 but I don’t even know if they need to be on the list if you’re
44:01 the person that’s on it.
44:01 You know what I mean? » Right. Well, I mean, they haven’t met
44:04 since 2020. » Right. Cultural Alliance, I used to sit
44:06 on it, but – » Right, right. And I – and we’ve had someone
44:09 on there, and I always went when I could, but then something
44:11 happened in June and they
44:12 even – they weren’t even sitting out until their invite, so I
44:14 just don’t know.
44:15 » Yeah. No, I figured as much. Yeah. So I think – I feel
44:17 pretty good about the list
44:18 minus, like, if we check in on that one, but, yeah, bringing it
44:21 back and saying, “Hey, this
44:22 is what we did. This is how we met,” and stuff like that. All
44:25 right?
44:25 » Well, yeah, and I think we – it’s – I mean, bringing it
44:27 back on the 17th, correct?
44:28 Because obviously – » Correct.
44:29 » – we’re going to have – » But it’s a great refresher.
44:32 Thank you so
44:33 much, Dr. Endell, for putting that in there. All right. Our
44:37 final topic – or not final
44:39 topic. We have the next topic is the proposed parent 913 meeting.
44:43 » So Mr. Gibbs – » Yeah, 9130 meeting. I think everybody’s
44:47 gotten those emails from the parent requesting this with the
44:51 board. My position has been
44:52 he has failed to provide what exactly he’s asking for as a part
44:57 of that, and in discussing
44:59 it with Dr. Endell, it is our belief that he is going to ask for
45:04 discipline of staff.
45:05 That is not a board function. That has to go through Dr. Endell,
45:08 so that would be the
45:10 appropriate placement. I’ve had a couple of board members say, “Let’s
45:13 just schedule it
45:14 and do it to get this over with.” So if the board wants me to
45:19 schedule that hearing and
45:21 just get him in here, and if he asks for discipline, say, “Sorry,
45:25 you’ve chosen the wrong forum
45:27 for disciplinary requests. You want policy changes?” The board
45:30 can review those and grant
45:31 those requests, but it cannot recommend discipline of staff.
45:36 » So board members? » So if we had the meeting – and I’ve
45:40 been
45:40 going back and forth with this particular person a few times –
45:43 but if we had the meeting,
45:45 basically it would be allowing him to present all of his
45:47 complaints, staff can present all
45:49 the complaints, but the board could literally do nothing.
45:52 » Yeah, depending on what the ultimate ask is, the board may
45:55 not have any power to do
45:56 anything. If he wants discipline, that has to come through the
45:58 superintendent, and there’s
46:00 contractual issues on the side that also have to be met, so
46:04 discipline –
46:05 » He’s failing to clarify why he’s – » Right, and that’s
46:08 because he will not say
46:09 what exactly it is he wants at this stage. He’s only saying, “I’ve
46:13 told you the four
46:13 things,” and two of them aren’t really things, so –
46:17 » Right. He’s asked for a review multiple times, which it’s
46:21 been reviewed by –
46:22 » It’s been reviewed. We don’t have – we don’t have both sides
46:25 yet. There is no Dr.
46:27 Rendell decision on what’s taken place at the school, so you
46:30 only have his version,
46:32 so the board, in my opinion, is not ripe for board review. It’s
46:36 still missing that piece.
46:37 » Right. » And to clarify, we’ve offered to have him
46:40 meet with me and Paul, and he said, “No, I want to meet with the
46:44 board.”
46:44 So going back to the policy, the third level is if a
46:49 satisfactory solution is not achieved
46:52 by discussion with staff members, director, supervisor, a
46:55 written request for a conference
46:56 shall be submitted to the superintendent or designee. This
46:59 request should include the
47:00 specific nature of the complaint, da-da-da-da-da, and then if it’s
47:05 – then it goes to the board.
47:07 I know you – I think you’ve had some back and forth, but that
47:10 – technically, that third
47:11 level has not been complete. » Correct. » Okay. So as a board,
47:15 it would
47:16 be – and this particular person has referred to this policy. If
47:20 level three has not been
47:21 complete, then we can’t get to level four. There’s no hopping
47:24 over level three to get
47:25 to level four. And I totally agree with you, Paul. Our job is
47:30 policy, budget, supervision
47:33 of the superintendent, those kinds of things. I – my only thing
47:37 would be if there’s something
47:38 – because I have looked through policy 9130 since we’ve had all
47:42 these conversations, and
47:43 if it’s – if there’s any way to make it more explicit that –
47:47 of the specific roles of
47:48 the board, I don’t know what we can do because I wouldn’t –
47:51 this is the first time it’s
47:52 happened that this scenario has happened, but I think it needs
47:55 to be clear. The board’s
47:57 not just here for people to have a rant session about things
48:00 that we have no power to control.
48:01 » Right. » If I may real quick, just from a personal
48:06 experience, when you allow somebody to come in who hasn’t said
48:09 what they’re going to say,
48:10 you have a board meeting, then they start throwing staff under
48:13 the bus or they start
48:14 doing stuff. And we don’t have the opportunity to research that
48:18 and be prepared for the meeting.
48:19 I think it puts us at a deficit. So if the gentleman – I
48:22 applaud anybody coming forward
48:23 with an issue, absolutely, but if the gentleman or the gentlewoman
48:27 is coming forward and not
48:29 presenting what it is that they’re going to say, then I don’t
48:31 want to have a meeting just
48:32 because I’m afraid of what might be said. And that’s always been
48:36 a thing with me, you
48:37 know what I mean, in that meeting, that exposes our people to
48:39 things that they can’t take
48:40 back. So that’s just my thought from a board member’s
48:43 perspective. I don’t know what you
48:44 guys feel about this. » Yeah, I mean, I’ve been the one that
48:48 said,
48:48 hey, let’s just have this meeting because I’m not really clear
48:50 and I know we’re not
48:50 getting clear direction from the e-mails that he’s sending on
48:53 which route we’re going. Is
48:54 there anything that would be opposed to just having the meeting
48:57 with the board and the
48:57 superintendent? I mean, I agree with not skipping level 3, but
49:01 at the same time, I also want
49:02 to be respective of listening to someone’s concerns or
49:05 complaints that they have and
49:05 if we can address it, let’s address it and try to resolve it.
49:10 » You could hold it more like a disciplinary hearing like we do
49:13 where he can present his
49:15 complaints and staff can come forward and answer those
49:18 complaints with their version
49:20 and the board say here, but the board cannot grant discipline.
49:24 So again, if he goes into
49:26 I want this person or that person disciplined, that’s outside
49:29 the board’s control. That has
49:31 to come from Dr. Endell. » So it would look more like a hearing
49:34 and
49:34 then we would basically at that point, the meeting would be –
49:37 he’s not going to have
49:38 a resolution upon the meeting of the board and the
49:40 superintendent.
49:41 » Unless he’s just asking for a policy and the board’s like,
49:43 hey, I agree, we need to
49:45 fix this policy or whatever. » There’s so many ways to deal
49:49 with that
49:49 before a hearing. And to be completely honest, in communication
49:55 with this person, I have
49:57 been told even personally, oh, you’re only taking one side. I’m
50:00 like, well, I’ve had
50:01 so many opportunities to hear the other side and exactly and
50:06 that, you know, if you’re
50:08 just waiting for – if we do it as a joint meeting with the
50:10 superintendent, then it’s
50:12 out in public and as Mr. Susan said, then we’re potentially
50:15 dragging people, staff members
50:17 who don’t have the opportunity to defend themselves into just a
50:20 mess. And I think it’s unprecedented
50:22 and I would encourage us to – there is a way, like I said, to
50:25 tighten the policy. But
50:27 if policy stands as it is and maybe it was just misunderstood, I
50:32 think it was, then I
50:33 guess we could leave it there. But if there’s a way to tweak it
50:36 to make it even more clear
50:38 of what’s under the authority of the board, that would probably
50:41 be helpful.
50:41 » I just think it opens us up if we don’t know what we’re
50:43 meeting about. And I’ve never
50:45 had a meeting with somebody that I don’t know what they’re
50:46 talking about.
50:47 » Yeah. I mean, I don’t disagree. I mean, we sort of know based
50:49 on what the e-mails
50:50 are. But so then I guess is it the board’s will to say, hey, we’re
50:53 reviewing this policy
50:54 and we understand level three has not been met. So at this point,
50:57 requesting the fourth
50:58 level review would be inappropriate. » I can send that e-mail
51:01 and, again, ask
51:02 for dates of availability for him to meet with Dr. Rendell and
51:05 myself.
51:06 » I don’t mind the guy bringing forward an issue. I just – and
51:09 I’ve never had a meeting
51:10 where somebody can talk – » We’re prepared to have the meeting.
51:13 He’s
51:13 just saying I don’t want to meet with you, I want to meet with
51:15 the board. So I feel like
51:17 we need to have the level three meeting. And then if he’s not
51:20 satisfied, then it qualifies
51:22 for level four. » Mr. Chair? » Yes, sir.
51:25 » I concur with almost everybody’s sentiments, I believe. Just
51:29 to give my opinion on record,
51:31 I don’t think that – I think the policy is clear. We stick with
51:34 our policy, keep the
51:34 lines distinct between the superintendent and the board and let
51:37 the superintendent do
51:38 his job and then if it goes on to the next level, then we
51:42 address it then. But if he’s
51:43 not even willing to state what his objectives are, that’s – why
51:47 are we going to put everybody
51:48 together for that? So. » All right. So I will communicate for a
51:55 level three meeting and try and organize that. » Thank you.
51:58 » Thank you. » Okay. Now on to the discussion of the logo
52:03 rights. Just to bring you guys up to speed, what ended up
52:06 happening is that we have our
52:08 – we sent out letters to tell them no, please stop. We engaged
52:13 in having a policy developed.
52:15 That policy looks a lot like the procurement policy where you
52:19 have a list of vendors per
52:20 school that is published that this is Vieira High, this is who
52:25 they’ve chosen. I feel that
52:27 the principal should be the one that makes the decision and then
52:31 that’s approved by the
52:32 school superintendent and possibly the school board. But it’s
52:35 pretty much a real easy thing
52:36 to do. I will tell you that some of the vendors that we’ve been
52:39 dealing with have been playing
52:40 games where they say in their contract, well, you told us but we
52:43 still have inventory according
52:45 to our previous contract we had with you so what they stated in
52:49 their contract was once
52:50 you tell us to stop we have to get rid of all of our inventory.
52:53 Well, you and I both
52:54 know they’ll just keep printing inventory on the back end and
52:57 their contract that they
52:58 had was signed in like 2013 with an athletic director and never
53:01 brought before a board
53:02 or procurement. So anyways, long story short, the direction that
53:06 I would like to do is develop
53:07 a policy, bring it back the night – the next appropriate time
53:10 which just basically allows
53:11 us to have a website which says these are the approved vendors
53:14 and if anybody wishes
53:15 to get approved, they go through the school or they come to Dr.
53:19 Endell if they’re a large
53:20 district-wide and then it’s published inside of the website so
53:23 everybody knows that’s it.
53:25 Pretty simple. Any of you guys have any issues on it? Are you
53:27 aware of any model policies
53:28 that we could – Mr. Volt proposed one. We got it Friday. Okay.
53:35 He drafted a proposal.
53:36 I can send that to the board. Yeah. And I talked to Sean Hines
53:39 about his process for
53:41 the way they do the – you know what I mean, the way they have
53:43 the other one and he said
53:44 yeah, that’s not an issue at all and pretty transparent. If
53:47 somebody doesn’t do their
53:49 job, then they’re kicked out, you know what I mean, and they go
53:51 somewhere else but I think
53:53 it’s time for us to get our guys back, you know. That’s it. All
53:57 right. And we – just
53:58 so everybody knows and for full transparency, we have every
54:01 right as we stand right now
54:03 that we don’t have to trademark them before we take the rights.
54:06 They are ours. They are
54:07 usually customary. If they have a logo that mimics like a
54:11 college, then they have to change
54:13 that logo but that’s ours. It’s not – you know what I mean. So
54:18 that’s it. And then we
54:19 can have fun with going and getting the law classes to do the
54:21 logos and everything else
54:22 but right now we have every right. All good? All right. Anything
54:27 further to discuss? I
54:28 just have one thing that came to mind when this candidate
54:33 brought this e-bike safety
54:34 issue. This isn’t specific to Cocoa Beach, but I just saw on the
54:39 news last week I believe
54:41 it was, it was either Orange or Osceola County. Pretty sure it
54:44 was the school district. My
54:46 memory is failing as far as which one it was, if it was the
54:48 school district or the county,
54:50 but there was – they were citing all the e-bike accidents and
54:54 deaths and I don’t know
54:55 how the statistics for Brevard County, but I just thought I
54:58 would bring it up to the
55:00 board. Is it something that we want to at least have staff
55:02 investigate? Is it something
55:03 we need to have a policy on because 99 percent of the time those
55:06 e-bikes are coming to school
55:08 and leaving school? Yep. So is it something we want to, you know,
55:12 address just to see
55:13 it as an issue? If I can, if I may just speak ahead of the
55:17 normal turns. Years ago when
55:19 we had golf carts and years before that when we had different
55:23 things come up like those
55:25 midpoint breaks inside of it, there’s organizations in the
55:28 community that are with the county
55:30 and some other organizations that come together and we develop a
55:34 policy like this, right?
55:36 I think what I was trying to do is get him to come over. What I
55:39 would like to do is engage
55:41 with all of them. The e-bike situation is absolutely atrocious.
55:44 We’ve got kids riding
55:45 the e-bikes at 30 miles an hour and getting hit by cars. There’s
55:48 nobody wearing helmets.
55:50 It is one of the – I mean, I heard state legislators, everybody’s
55:54 talking about it.
55:55 I agree that we have to move towards something, but I don’t want
55:59 us to be the lead as much
56:00 because there’s resources in other groups. So if you would like,
56:03 I can call those groups,
56:05 pull them together and say can we have a meeting, maybe even
56:07 have them come to a workshop and
56:09 work through. What I would like to do is set something up in
56:12 conjunction with those organizations
56:14 at our schools prior to school starting possibly, but like to
56:17 load our staff with that responsibility
56:19 becomes a little bit much. So maybe it’s that the outside
56:22 organizations run it and then
56:24 they verify it to our school or something. I don’t know. We can
56:26 figure that out. Just
56:27 to clarify, I was not trying to suggest that we become traffic
56:30 cops. It was more like if
56:32 you have an e-bike in school, here’s the requirement to be able
56:35 to have an e-bike at school, something
56:36 along those lines. Well, I think that’s a great idea, but I also
56:39 question the enforceability
56:40 of this. If there’s not laws that back up, I don’t know how we
56:43 would be able to necessarily
56:44 impose some of them. They can’t bring that bike to school. They
56:47 can’t bring it into the
56:47 school or they would have to walk it into the school, but it
56:50 doesn’t solve the problem
56:51 because as a parent who picks up a teenager from a high school
56:54 on a pretty routine basis,
56:55 I will tell you, I see them on the roads everywhere. We have no
56:58 authority on the roads to impose
57:00 that. So I like this idea from an educational standpoint. I
57:03 think it’s really, really good.
57:04 I think the legislature needs to take up this matter, too,
57:06 because it is a problem in our
57:08 state, but we need to figure out the problem. Or at least the
57:11 county commission can develop
57:13 an ordinance. They have resources and departments that are
57:15 perfect for it, but I think we can
57:18 work with them. For full transparency, last year the kids that
57:22 were around the new publics
57:24 in Vieira, they were literally flying through the parking lot in
57:27 between cars. It was like
57:29 Frogger. I called them and they said, “Yeah, we’re afraid the
57:34 kid’s going to get killed
57:35 in front of our parking lot.” So we need to be able to say, “Hey,
57:37 look, if this behavior
57:38 is happening, we’ll pull your permit to park it at the school or
57:41 something.” You know what
57:42 I mean? I don’t know. Us being proactive in it, not that we’re
57:45 going to get traffic caused,
57:46 but proactive in trying to find resolution to make sure things
57:50 are safe for our kids.
57:51 The county, though, has an entire department dedicated to this
57:54 kind of stuff. They go out
57:55 and they do our bicycle safety with the helmets and all that
57:57 stuff. Let me reach out to them,
57:59 if you guys can, and bring it back to the next meeting. That’s
58:01 why I was trying to get
58:02 him to meet with me, because he’s got a robust thing, but we
58:05 need to have a stronger conversation.
58:07 I think it’s a League of Cities conversation, too.
58:08 Sure. I agree.
58:10 All right. Everybody good?
58:11 It looks like a car.
58:12 I was looking at that. It’s pretty fancy. It is a car.
58:13 It looks like a car.
58:14 It was a car. At first I was like, “Did he bend that to do that?”
58:18 Then I was like, “No.”
58:19 All right. Anybody else got anything? Are we all getting ready
58:24 to go to lunch? Ms. Campbell
58:26 is going to choose where we’re going to go. Everybody good? All
58:29 right. Thank you.
58:49 (upbeat music)