>>Karen Perez: THE BOARD WORKSHOP OF MARCH 31st IS NOW -- WE'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. SUPERINTENDENT. >>Van Ayres: THANK YOU, BOARD MEMBERS. THIS IS THE FIRST OF OUR TWO-PART WORKSHOP THIS MORNING AND INTO THE AFTERNOON. WE'LL START WITH POLICIES. THIS IS PART OF THE POLICY CYCLE WHICH WE HAVE A WORKSHOP, AND A I THINK THERE ARE FIVE PROPOSED POLICIES. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. PORTER TO GO OVER WITH THE BOARD MEMBERS THE PROPOSED POLICIES IN TODAY'S FIRST PART. >>Jim Porter: THANK YOU, SUPERINTENDENT. AS THE SUPERINTENDENT SAID, THERE ARE FIVE POLICIES. FOUR ARE BOARD INITIATED THAT I WILL INTRODUCE. THE LAST ONE IS A STAFF PROPOSED POLICY MS. DAVIS WILL INTRODUCE. WE'LL JUMP INTO THEM. THE FIRST ONE IS REVISION OF POLICY 0160 REGARDING MEETINGS.
THIS WAS BROUGHT FORWARD BY MEMBER RENDON. WHAT THE POLICY DOES IS REALLY CODIFY WHAT WE'RE ALREADY DOING AT BOARD MEETINGS ABOUT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. IF YOU TURN TO PAGE 3 OF 4 BEGINNING ON LINE 147, YOU SEE THE RED-LINED VERSION. THIS IS JUST A REFLECTION OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY HAPPENING AT BOARD MEETINGS. MS. RENDON, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK FURTHER ABOUT THE REASONING FOR THAT. >>Patti Rendon: THANK YOU SO MUCH. BASED UPON CERTAIN LAWSUITS THAT WERE FILED IN BREVARD COUNTY, AS WELL AS ALACHUA AND ARRANGE AT DIFFERENT TIMES, EACH TIME THE REFERENCES IN ANY OF THE CASES REFERENCE POLICY. THIS WAS NOT INCLUDED IN OUR POLICY, BUT WE READ IT OUT LOUD AT A BOARD MEETING. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WHAT WE SAY AT A BOARD MEETING WE HAVE IN POLICY. WE JUST KNOW WE'RE FOLLOWING EXACTLY WHAT WE SAY WE'RE GOING TO SAY.
>>Nadia Combs: MEMBER GRAY. >>Lynn Gray: THAT WAS GOOD SERVICE. YEAH, I THANK EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM PUTTING ALL THE POLICIES TOGETHER. THANK YOU, MR. PORTER. I APPRECIATE THIS BECAUSE WE'VE ALWAYS HAD A VARIATION OF HOW MANY MINUTES THE PUBLIC CAN SPEAK. OH, IT'S TOO LONG. SAME PEOPLE SPEAK. YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD THOSE KINDS OF CONVERSATIONS IN THE PAST.
AND I WAS JUST WONDERING -- AND THIS IS REGARDING LINE 152 WHERE WE HAVE THREE MINUTES FOR CERTAIN AMOUNT. I JUST WONDER IF WE WOULD OPEN TO THINK ABOUT JUST A BLANKET TWO MINUTES FOR EVERYONE BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS, IN MY THREE MINUTES, DO I HAVE TWO MINUTES? DO I HAVE ONE MINUTE? THAT WOULD ERADICATE AND ELIMINATE THAT TYPE OF SITUATION THAT HAPPENS. WAS THAT MY TWO MINUTES? [ LAUGHTER ] ALL RIGHT. THERE COMES THE HOOK. THAT'S ONE CONSIDERATION. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO BOARD COMMENTS. THE SECOND ONE IS AN EDIT AND THEN I'LL BE DONE. LINE 157 WHERE IT SAYS NO BOARD MEMBER WILL INTERRUPT A SPEAKER, HOWEVER THE BOARD WILL NOT ALLOW -- AND I JUST WONDER WITH DUE RESPECT TO CHAIR PEREZ AND FUTURE CHAIRS, IF IT WOULD BE BETTER TO PUT HOWEVER THE CHAIR WILL NOT ALLOW ANY BEHAVIOR. BECAUSE IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, I'M NOT GOING TO POUND, RIGHT, BECAUSE I'M NOT A CHAIR.
VAUGHN IS NOT GOING TO POUND. I KNOW SUPERINTENDENT VAN AYRES WON'T. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT? I'LL LEAVE THAT AS AN OPEN QUESTION TO THE BOARD. >>Nadia Combs: MEMBER RENDON, YOU CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE COMMENTS AFTERWARDS. GO AHEAD NOW THEN. >>Patti Rendon: SO THIS IS WHAT WE AS A BOARD ALREADY DISCUSSED WHEN WE HAD A RETREAT TWO YEARS AGO AND WE CREATED THIS PROCEDURE THAT WE'RE USING AT OUR BOARD MEETINGS. SO I JUST TOOK WHAT WE AS A BOARD HAD ALREADY APPROVED IN THAT RETREAT AND PUT IT IN POLICY. I DIDN'T CHANGE ANY OF THE WORDING.
I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY, BUT WE HAD ALREADY DISCUSSED WHETHER THREE MINUTES, TWO MINUTES OR HOW WE DID IT AND WE MADE A DISCUSSION SINCE OUR DISTRICT WAS SO LARGE THAT WE GAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THREE MINUTES FOR PEOPLE THAT WOULD COME. SOME PEOPLE COME AN HOUR AND A HALF JOUST SPEAK. -- JUST TO SPEAK. TOO LONG AFTER 30 PEOPLE. ANY MAKE ANY CHANGES TO WHAT THE BOARD DECIDED AT THE RETREAT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT WAS CODIFIED IN POLICY, NOT JUST SOMETHING WE READ AT THE DAIS. WHATEVER THE BOARD FEELS DIFFERENTLY, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE WORDING, THE BOARD WILL NOT ALLOW BEHAVIOR, AGAIN, IT'S ALREADY WHAT WE SAID THROUGH THE RETREAT AS A BOARD. EVEN THOUGH THE CHAIR MAY BE THE ONE TO START A BEHAVIOR, THE POLICY IS STATING THAT AS A BOARD, WE WILL NOT TOLERATE THAT, BECAUSE IT IS OUR MEETING, NOT JUST ONE PERSON.
THAT'S WHY WE LEFT IT THE WAY IT WAS. BUT I DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING FROM WHAT WE HAD ALL AGREED UPON ORIGINALLY. >>Lynn Gray: WE ARE IN A POLICY WORKSHOP NOW. IT DOESN'T MEAN THESE WORDS WERE EDITS -- -- [OFF MICROPHONE] -- AGAIN, I JUST LEAVE IT OPEN TO BOARD REFLECTION AND COMMENT. >> YOUR MIKE. YOUR MICROPHONE. >>Lynn Gray: IT IS. YOU DON'T HEAR ME? YEAH, I THINK SO. JUST TO REPEAT, THIS IS A POLICY WORKSHOP, AND THIS IS THE TIME AND THE TIME FOR THE CONDUITS AND VERBIAGE AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THE REMARKS SO WE CAN ABSOLUTELY AS A BOARD CHANGE. IF NOT, OBVIOUSLY, WE KEEP THE SAME. THAT CONCLUDES MY REMARKS. THANK YOU.
>>Nadia Combs: THANK YOU, MEMBER GRAY. MEMBER VAUGHN. >>Jessica Vaughn: THANK YOU. MADAM VICE-CHAIR. SO I HAVE MIXED FEELINGS ABOUT THIS POLICY BECAUSE I DO APPRECIATE THAT IF IT'S IN POLICY, IT'S VERY CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT, AND PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING TO SPEAK WILL UNDERSTAND BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF CONFUSION IF WE'RE CHANGING IT KIND OF AS-IS, IF PEOPLE PREPARE A CERTAIN SPEECH AND THEN THEY GET HERE AND REALIZE THAT THINGS HAVE TO CHANGE AND THEY DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE TO CUT IT DOWN TO A MINUTE AND A HALF OR A MINUTE AND THAT CAUSES A LOT OF FRUSTRATION FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO COME AND GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT. I DO THINK THAT IT LIMITS THE CHAIR'S ABILITY TO KIND OF HAVE AUTONOMY OVER THIS AND SET THIS. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S WHERE WE WANT TO GO AS A BOARD, THAT'S FINE.
BUT IT DOES, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS I KNOW, SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN DECIDED THROUGH OUR WAY OF WORK, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE CHANGE WITHOUT HAVING TO HAVE SEVERAL HEARINGS ABOUT IT AND CHANGING POLICY. SO I DO WORRY IF WE WANT TO MAKE CHANGES TO THIS BECAUSE OF WHATEVER, IT BECOMES VERY LABORIOUS TO DO SO AS OPPOSED TO OUR WAY OF WORK. I'M OPEN TO WHICHEVER WAY THE BOARD WANTS TO GO. I DO, HOWEVER, KIND OF AGREE THAT I DON'T LIKE THE PART WHERE IT SAYS NO BOARD MEMBER WILL INTERRUPT A SPEAKER, BECAUSE I JUST HAVE NO IDEA WHAT COULD GO ON. IF SOMETHING GOT EXTREMELY VOLATILE OR I FELT THREATENED IN SOME WAY OR SOMETHING HAPPENED, LIKE, I DON'T WANT TO BREAK MY OWN POLICY. I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT IS A GOOD HABIT FOR US IN THAT WE DON'T WANT TO GET IN BACK AND FORTH AND PEOPLE WHO COME TO SPEAK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY WITHOUT BEING INTERRUPTED.
I DON'T WANT TO LIKE LOCK US INTO THAT SPECIFICALLY, JUST IN CASE, WHO KNOWS WHAT COULD HAPPEN. IF THE CHAIR DID NEED TO INTERRUPT OR IF SOMETHING HAPPENED OR I FELT UNSAFE FOR SOME REASON. WE CAN'T BE NAIVE ABOUT THE TIME WE LIVE IN AND WHAT WE'RE LIVING IN. I DON'T WANT TO BREAK MY OWN POLICY IF FOR SOME REASON I INTERRUPT A SPEAKER KNOWINGLY OR UNKNOWINGLY. THAT IS THE PIECE I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH. THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS. THANK YOU. >>Nadia Combs: THANK YOU. I'M NEXT IN LINE. I CONCUR WITH THE THINGS. I THINK THIS IS MORE PROCEDURAL AND MORE OF THE WAY OF WORK THAT WE'VE ALWAYS DONE IN THE PAST.
I KNOW THAT THE SECOND, THIRD YEAR WHEN I WAS CHAIR, ALWAYS THREE MINUTES AND TWO MINUTES IF IT WAS MORE. BUT ONCE IN A WHILE, LIKE, THERE IS A HOT TOPIC OR PEOPLE FEEL REALLY BAD ABOUT SOMETHING OR SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AND I DON'T WANT TO LOCK MYSELF IN AND BE LIKE, OKAY, YOU ONLY GET TWO MINUTES NO MATTER WHAT. IT MIGHT BE A HUGE, HUGE TOPIC THAT MIGHT REALLY IMPACT PEOPLE AND LIKE TWO OR THREE THINGS THAT NIGHT THAT ARE REALLY IMPACTING PEOPLE. TWO OR THREE THINGS ON THE AGENDA THAT REALLY IMPACT INDIVIDUALLY, AND THAT MEANS THAT DAY, NO MATTER WHAT, IF THERE ARE TWO BIG ITEMS THAT I HAVE TO GO TO TWO MINUTES. I THINK A WAY OF WORK, IT'S ALWAYS WORKED SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE FOR FIVE YEARS.
I THINK THAT WAY OF WORK, WE'RE ABLE TO CHANGE AND PRETTY MUCH HAVE STUCK WITH THREE MINUTES, EXCEPT FOR TWO MINUTES. ONCE AGAIN, WHAT MEMBER VAUGHN SAID, LIKE, LET'S SAY YOU'RE OUT AND I'M OUT AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE IS ANOTHER PERSON IN, LIKE, WHO KNOWS. I THINK THAT SOMETIMES LIKE THERE'S BEEN TIMES ON THE BOARD WHERE I'VE HAD TO ONCE IN A BLUE MOON, YOU MAY HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING OR SPEAK OUT OF TURN, THAT MAY HAPPEN ONCE IN A WHILE.
I REMEMBER A FEW MONTHS AGO WHERE I SAID SOMETHING TO MEMBER VAUGHN WHEN SHE WAS ON THE BOARD AND SOMEBODY WAS SPEAKING AND IT WAS KIND OF IMPORTANT. SO IT WAS VERY TIME SENSITIVE. SO I THINK THAT CAN HAPPEN. I THINK THIS IS JUST, AS MUCH AS I APPRECIATE THE THOUGHT AND THE IDEA, I THINK THIS IS MORE PROCEDURE. I DON'T LIKE IT IN POLICY, ALL OF A SUDDEN WE DECIDE WE WANT TO DO FOUR MINUTES, I GOT TO GO WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT POLICY CYCLE AND CHANGE THAT POLICY CYCLE. I JUST DON'T LIKE BEING LOCKED INTO THAT TIME OR ALSO THE COMMENT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU.
MEMBER PEREZ. >>Karen Perez: SO I'M LOOKING AT THIS, AND IT SAYS, HOWEVER, THE BOARD WILL NOT ALLOW ANY BEHAVIOR THAT INTERRUPTS THE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF THE MEETING. WE'VE HAD TIMES WHERE THE FOLKS WATCHING THE MEETING ARE GETTING KIND OF LOUD AND ROWDY. I'VE HAD TO HIT THE GAVEL SEVERAL TIMES TO ASK THEM TO PLEASE CALM DOWN BECAUSE WE CAN'T HEAR THE SPEAKERS. BUT IT SAYS "THE BOARD." AND IT SAYS NO BOARD MEMBER WILL INTERRUPT THE SPEAKER. BUT I HAVE TO INTERRUPT THE SPEAKER A MINUTE TO GET THE AUDIENCE TO CALM DOWN. AND STOP THEIR TIME FOR A MOMENT WHILE WE RESET THE FOLKS. THIS IS NOT GOING TO WORK. 157 TO 158 THAT HAS TO BE LOOKED AT. HOWEVER, THE BOARD. NOT SO MUCH THE CHAIR, BUT IT SAYS THE BOARD WILL NOT ALLOW ANY BEHAVIOR. BUT THE POWER IS WITH THE CHAIR, NOT SO MUCH THE BOARD.
THE CHAIR IS THE ONE WHO SAYS ORDER IN THE BOARDROOM. WE NEED SILENCE. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO LISTEN TO THE SPEAKERS. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO CALM DOWN. THE NOISE LEVEL IS GETTING TOO LOUD. PLEASE RESPECT OUR SPEAKERS. I'VE NEVER HAD ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER OR WHEN THERE IS ANOTHER CHAIR, I'VE NEVER SPOKEN OUT AS A BOARD MEMBER OVER THE CHAIR TO REDIRECT THE INTERRUPTIONS THAT HAPPEN DURING A BOARD MEETING. WE'VE ALWAYS WAITED AND RESPECTED ANY CHAIR THAT'S SITTING THERE, YOU KNOW, AT THAT TIME. SO THAT'S WHAT I HAVE HERE.
BUT WITH THE ALLOTTED TIME, WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN VERY FLEXIBLE WHEN IT COMES FROM THREE MINUTES TO TWO MINUTES. I DON'T KNOW IF WE REALLY NEED THIS BECAUSE THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.
>>Nadia Combs: MEMBER WASHINGTON HASN'T SPOKEN AND THEN WE CAN GO FROM THERE. >>Henry "Shake" Washington: THTHANK YOU, MADAM VICE-CHAIR. I THINK THE WAY THE BOARD RUNS, IT RUNS SMOOTHLY. I MEAN, WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY PROBLEMS. I HAVE NOT HAD ANY PERSON COME AND COMPLAIN. YOU DO A GREAT JOB WHEN THEIR TIME IS UP. YOU CUT IT OFF. AND WHOEVER THE CHAIR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THE NEXT PERSON COMES UP. I DON'T SEE A NEED TO CHANGE THE PROCEDURE BECAUSE IT'S WORKING. IF IT WASN'T WORKING, THEN, YEAH, WE CAN GO BACK AND CHANGE IT, BUT IT'S RUNNING SMOOTHLY NOW. THANK YOU.
>>Nadia Combs: THANK YOU, MEMBER WASHINGTON. MR. PORTER. >>Jim Porter: I THINK THE REASON MS. RENDON BROUGHT THE POLICY FORWARD, SHE ARTICULATED, THERE'S BEEN COURT CASES. I THINK WE'VE ALL WATCHED WHAT HAPPENED OVER THE PAST YEAR WITH THE STATE AND LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS AND BOARD MEETINGS GETTING OUT OF HAND AND PUTTING THE CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS IN A LOT OF PERIL BECAUSE OF PUBLIC BEHAVIOR. SO THIS DOES A COUPLE OF THINGS. IT JUST REFLECTS WHAT YOU'RE ALREADY DOING AND IT ADDS A LAYER OF PROTECTION FOR THIS BOARD AND FOR THE CHAIR SO THAT YOU HAVE IN PLACE AND THE PUBLIC KNOWS WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN THEY COME INTO A MEETING. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT. THE POLICY AS IT STANDS IS VERY BROAD, WHICH POLICIES ARE. THE THOUGHT BEHIND THIS WAS TO GIVE CERTAINTY TO THE PUBLIC AND PROTECTION TO THE BOARD TO THAT WHEN SOMETHING DOES HAPPEN, WE CAN WORDSMITH IT.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE BOARD, WE CAN CHANGE IT TO CHAIR. THE POINT IS, COUPLE OF THINGS, ONE, MY LEGAL ADVICE HAS BEEN PUBLIC COMMENT IS A MONOLOGUE, NOT A DIALOGUE.
IF YOU OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, WHICH YOU DO, EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO STAND THERE FOR THREE MINUTES AND SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT AS LONG AS THEY DON'T QUOTE, UNQUOTE, DISRUPT THE MEETING. THAT IS A LITTLE SUBJECTIVE, BUT WE'VE SEEN THAT HAPPEN. THE NOT INTERRUPTING THE SPEAKER IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN THE BOARD MEMBERS, YOU ALL GET IN TROUBLE INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY AS A BOARD. BUT IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT THAT THE BOARD OR THE CHAIR DOESN'T TOLERATE BEHAVIOR THAT'S MEANT TO DISRUPT THE MEETING. WE DON'T NEED PERFORMATIVE BEHAVIOR AT A SCHOOL BOARD MEETING OR THINGS THAT WILL REALLY DISRUPT THE MEETING. THAT LANGUAGE REFLECTS NOT ONLY THE RECENT CASES BUT ALSO WHERE WE ARE IN FLORIDA WITH STATE GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS. SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR IT. IF THE BOARD IS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE POLICY, THAT'S COMPLETELY FINE. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE IN TROUBLE FOR NOT DOING IT.