001break] Okay. Thank you. And welcome back to the school board workshop. We are still on policy. 1020 and as I mentioned, I had I didn't treat it as a true rural development. So we're going to go back. Doctor Natalie Lynch. Walsh, had you have three minutes to do your your back and forth with with staff. And just to clarify, because I know sometimes the rules are different, but it was that when they answer that the clock isn't running when people are okay. That is correct. Just want to make sure because you know Deidre special. All right Natalie Lynch Walsh, anyone who was here on ten 1723 can appreciate the joke. So first question back to page two, section Roman numeral two. See, in the interest in the goal of transparency. Back when I first started
002volunteering, workshop agendas were public facing about 2 to 3 months out. Is there any reason we can't go back to that if you guys are going to be discussing them? Staff repeat. Should I go, Jackie, and say, you know, pay attention. Sorry, it's passing out some motions, but please repeat your question. Okay. That shouldn't count against me. If I have to repeat right. The time is not. Running good. All right, so back in the olden days in 2011, you used to have workshop agenda topics were public facing 2 to 3 months out and then that died somewhere around 2012. Is there any reason we can't go back to that? If you guys are, in fact going to be discussing at the end of a workshop the next couple of months? That way people can plan
003their time, and because some people have to ask for time off a month or two in advance, and this way they can plan if there's something coming up that they want to talk speak to. My response to that is agendas are posted and advertised per statute and law, and most of the time they're up two weeks before. MADAM Chair, it's the school board policy. So is there any objection would the board object to having since you know what the topics are? And all it was was the topics. So people had a clue what was coming up in the future. I would ask, we we get the sheet that you send to us that has that for the next two workshops. Is that something we could make public? We that is that two months out though.
004But we can make whatever we share. I mean it's a public document. So but again that's not two months out. Well I mean whatever you share with us. Yeah. And then our agendas are constantly changing too. So I don't want to give a perception that if it's not on there a month, two months out, whatever it is, it's not going to happen. If we made a compromise and what you give to us, if you could make that. I would just caution the board because again, we publish our agendas and items per statute according to that timeline, anything you do would be above and beyond that. And again, it's up to the board. Well, I feel I mean, I don't know how the board feels if it's a public document. Anyway, why couldn't we just post
005if there's a place to put it? I don't know where it would. Change constantly, so we would have to make sure we're updating it as it changes. And again, that document's not two months out. We MAY want not want to just because it's not settled yet. And it's misleading the public about what we're going to talk about. That's why, you know, it should go in my mind once it's settled. You know, once the superintendent decided like finally, given all the puts and takes, this is what we're going to talk. I would prefer to share it with the. Public once it's settled. We post it on our websites and online per per statute, and we advertise as well. Okay, MISS Thompson, you wanted to say something. I was just going to say what he said. Okay,
006so I guess we'll look to see because MRS. Rupert put her thumb up to agree. I think that so any there are two objections. Anybody else object to posting the same paper that we get that gives you the workshop topics? The suggestion is the paper that well the suggestion was more months, but we don't necessarily know that so far out. But we get a sheet that tells us the next two workshops, what would be included in them. So what we're discussing is would we want them to post that because it's a public document anyway? So two of us are saying, yes, two of us are saying no. Anybody have a strong feeling yes or no? Could we compromise and put it out when it's settled? The one two months out, as soon as we know
007what we're going to do with that one. Challenges. We use Granicus and we don't post when we post stuff on Granicus. It's it's an agenda item. So I don't even know where we would we'd have to have a in a different place. And it's you're going to have multiple items about a workshop and or I guess workshop in multiple websites. I think it's confusing. MISS My opinion. Missus Rupert. Back in the day when I was a first year school board member, we had many months ahead of workshop, ahead of time, many months. We gave our topics. The superintendent and the staff would have a couple months out and that was really how it went. But that's true. It did happen and it was like that. And the public did know. And then it was an
008operational decision to not do that anymore. So I'm I'm cool for it to go back to just thought I'd fill the rest of the board in because I'm the only. So just to let you know that historically we did do it. Thank you. MRS. Alhadeff is on the phone. Go ahead. MRS. Yeah. She's on. If beacon can. Yeah. MISS Alhadeff, if you can unmute, check if your phone is muted. Okay. Hello. I'm going to put you on the speaker. If you want to speak. Right okay. Yes. Please go ahead. I'm okay with making it public when the board gets it. But if we could put an asterisk on, on the bottom to, to say subject, you know, to possibly change some type of language like that. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? I just where would
009we post that then if. I don't have to create a different website. So there'll be two websites, one with this document and then one in Granicus once the item is finalized and advertised and the item is ready for posting. Can we just put it on the front page of the district website so it says upcoming workshops or something. Just add another link there. I mean, we're not trying to make a lot of extra work. Hypothetical workshops. But it'll still be an additional webpage. You're just saying on the district home page, upcoming workshop, and then it's taking you to a different page so you don't. Cause. I mean, we can do that. I'm just saying that it's confusing, I think, to the public to have multiple websites with information about the same meeting. It was not
010confusing back in 2011. It was actually quite helpful. Well, we're not in 2011. This is 2025. Our workshops are agenda items. They change constantly. I'm sure there's a workshop for that was requested in this meeting for next month's workshop. So it's continuously changing. It's not. But again, we can make it happen. I just think it's. Why instead of adding a link, why could we not just include the pdf, like just be a click where it's not necessarily making you do just upload the pdf that you send. I'd have to check with Granicus. Remember when we put stuff on Granicus, the agenda's already been posted, right? But you you make a one pager for us. It says upcoming workshops. Why can't we just post that one sheet or I. Can, it'd just be in a different
011website. It's not going to be where Granicus is because. I don't think that's a problem. I that's what I'm saying. Just the easiest place would be to just put it on the home page of the district website as a pdf. You click and it goes to the pdf that we get. Whatever the board wants. So yes, I went on the website and when you hover over school board, there is a tab that says upcoming meetings, but that is the district school year calendar and public meetings and events calendar. I don't know. Couldn't you just add a I mean, MR. Davis is maybe the person, but at. The top section. Upcoming workshops. I get what MR. Davis to see if it's possible. Okay. MRS. Rupert, did you want to add something? I yeah, I just just
012say that the the staff meets monthly with the superintendent about the agenda prep so they would know what's on the workshops at the minimum a few months ahead of time. So thanks because they're pretty good at that. Yes. I'm just thinking as a compromise, you already make a one pager for us. Just post the one pager when you give it to us, put it on the page and then subject to to change. It's not really asking too much more. Okay. Everybody okay with that? Okay. I still I still don't agree with that. Great. Okay. With what? With adding the the one pager that they give to us to the page that's on there. Okay. I hate to confuse people. You have. Okay. And and right for more issues I think it's opening up the door
013for. It. Looks like that doesn't. That's a no go next. Okay. There goes transparency okay. Alright. Now so next up Volunteer Protection Act in the interest of not having staff confused, the Volunteer Protection Act gives the same protections to advisory members acting within the scope of their responsibilities as the board has. And in the two responses from MR. Vignola from 2022, which are on MISS Battista's letterhead and she was copied on the emails, he then explains in response to audit committee questions and some of his answers, explain and infer that you would be that the advisory members, if someone tried to sue them, say, for defamation of character, that the district would pay any costs. So is there any reason that a we can't separate advisory members? And just from your earlier conversation, understand that
014you are you have quarterly meetings. And now if you go to quarterly reports, it suggests that you need to combine. But is there any reason that that language from the Volunteer Protection Act cannot be included and referenced in this meeting policy? So everyone's clear that when they're giving, whether they're giving a committee report or doing public as a public speaker, but reporting on the committee or having a discussion with the board, all of that is part of their official duties. So that staff is not is not confused. And there's a very, very concrete reason why we don't want staff confused. MISS MISS Battista, MR. Sullivan, the. Clock still running even though I stopped talking. I don't believe volunteers as part of 1020. But MISS Battista could opine. MISS Battista. Right. How are volunteers who give
015committee reports? Not part of 1020. I answered the question. Okay. So the Florida Volunteer Protection Act does protect volunteers from civil liability when they're acting in good faith and within the scope of their official duties. But I if there were if that law were to be referenced somewhere, first of all, the protections don't go away just because it's not referenced here or in a policy from the school board. But I think that would fit better in policy 1700, which is the policy related to committees as opposed to in this policy, which is for the board. Okay. I'm sorry, policy 1700. Yes. She said. That's just for audit committee. Oh, I'm sorry. 1070 1070. Yes, 70. It's late in the hour. Sorry, MISS Bowman. Just to clarify. What. What is the intended need for the like?
016I guess I don't have a point of reference of why we're. This would need to be referenced in there. It wouldn't. That's why I'm saying that 1020 doesn't really have to do with volunteers. And MISS Battista was staying. It would be more appropriate if it were going to be added into 1070. Because the statute covers, regardless of the statute, is going to trump whatever policy that we have anyway. So if there was some kind of a conflict where then we wouldn't. You literally in in this policy. Well, because I don't know where to interject. This policy governs committee reports. And you also have quarterly meetings with advisory chairs. And there needs to be clarity that they are they are acting within the scope of their responsibilities. I agree it should be in 1070, but why
017can't it be here? I just don't understand at all why it would have to be in our policy. If it's in statute, it's covered, you know, there this is a very specific statute that says volunteers cannot be held liable for a series of things as long as they're acting in good faith. Okay. It's on the books. Like we don't repeat statute in all our policies just for, you know, giggles. Or so that people don't create commit malfeasance and bring bogus bullying complaints and try. To her time has expired, MADAM Chair. Well, yeah, I lost a minute. Somehow, even though I barely. I gave you back the time. No, you didn't. As I was watching that. Thank you. Anybody before we move on? Anybody feel as if we need to add that statute to the policy
018in this policy anyway? Okay. All right. Thank you. MRS. Rupert. You are up next. Thank you. I was looking at. Page 12 of 15.5. Sectionon e e. And. On the where I, where I want it to actually come into is an addition pending. No objection from the board. Staff will incorporate red lines to page 12, section e to expressly state that public speakers MAY not make written or oral statements regarding any candidacy. Language will also be added to article three, section f, to clarify provisions regarding requests for a written response. You all should have a copy of it. Okay. Anybody? Is everybody seeing what she's reading? It says policy 1020 talking points. We were all we all received anyway. Do you want. Yes, sir. So anybody have an objection to the suggestion? Yeah, they're still
019reading. I don't know what you want to remove and replace it with this or add this position. Now we're. In addition. Yeah. Oh, gosh. No. Can we ask the general counsel just to make sure this is legit? Is it okay to restrict people from saying they're a candidate for an office at a controlled meeting like this? Yes. That's what's already in 12. But I think the language that MRS. Rupert is trying to add would just clarify or strengthen that sentiment. Basically, e already says public speakers shall not engage in political campaigning during their public speaking time, including making statements regarding any candidacy that would include theirs. Public speakers shall not wear any buttons, caps, shirts or items of clothing that could constitute political activity. For the written. Part of it. Right, because we take public
020comment routinely, we take written public comments. If they don't come to the board meeting. So sounds great. Yes. Good idea. MR. Severe, do you have a question? I have a question. I agree with Board Member Rupert suggestion here. I think it's a good one. As as I'm drawing my attention to subsection e, though, I'm wondering and perhaps chair, this is best for the general counsel. This says public speaker shall not wear buttons, caps, should or items of clothing that could, quote constitute political activity. I don't know what political activity is. I mean, I know what political campaigning is. I'm not sure political activity is necessarily a defined term in statute. My my question is we often see folks come in t shirts with messages about things that are before the board. We saw it with
021that. The Sports Academy program. Everybody came in in in matching shirts, which I'm not necessarily opposed to. I'm just wondering, would this language, as we, we have that potentially be in in violation if folks were to come in matching hats or matching t shirts saying, you know, do this or we support this, I mean, could that quote unquote constitute political activity? I'm just a little hung up on the phrase political activity. I agree, because you probably say campaigning as the first part of that sentence states. Like. Surely it can't say vote for Bob. Like, I don't think anybody's done it. But if you come in like we support, you know, the stadium or whatever, I mean, is that is that political activity. If you're coming to speak in a, in a public forum like this
022on an agenda item that the board is voting for. I. Yeah, I think I just the phrase political activity I think is a little too loose for my liking. Your suggestion is to add campaign. Just to. Just change. Constitute political campaigning. Or campaign activity. Campaign activity. Yeah. That's pretty clear. Yeah. Okay. I think we're good with that. And everybody's okay with MRS. Rupert suggestion. Okay. Should we ask about no objections to campaign activity though? Yeah, I was asking altogether. Everybody's good with both. Okay, great. Anything else, MRS. Rupert? No, that was perfect. Doctor Holness. We were in the middle of another item before we broke about the that I said I was going to look up. Oh, Doctor Holness before. Okay. MRS. MISS Batista wanted to come back. She said she was going to look
023something up for us in the interim there, so she'd like to report back. So for. The statute, 768.295 is not applicable to that section. On page 13. Number four. Is that section eight, subsection four, on decorum that I that I had inquired. Yes. On under decorum. So it's okay to leave four in. It's okay to leave four in. I actually would now that I've looked at it again, I would like to change the word accusatory to insult so that it's consistent with the other section earlier in the policy. That's okay with everybody. Personal insult. Personal insults instead of personal. Sounds great. Chair. Okay. Anybody have an issue with that. And staff is capturing all this right okay okay. MRS. Bowman. Thank you. Good catch on that. I had somewhere in your pile of suggested language,
024which I don't I can't even think just to. Reword a little bit, I think it's section two c. But I could be wrong because let me look. Yeah, it's on page two, I believe. Yeah. What's the change on your piece of paper though? Which it says section two c to read school board workshops as it's. I think Doctor Simon's asking what's the actual. Could you point out what the actual changes are. This isn't like done in track changes or anything. So I can't see what is new. I think it's the second underline. Well. No. I can read it if you guys want to take time. I think starting at the third sentence, it's changed recommendation. How come I don't get any. Of these people? Clearly you're finally getting a picture. Copy. For sure. It's fine.
025Don't kill trees. They're already dead. Don't leave me alone. I'm getting yourself. This way. There's no. One. I mean. It's like it's giving the superintendent the discretion to determine if. If a board request is going to take too many resources and it needs to come back as an agenda item. Could I summarize this as saying that this is just a better written version of Toucy, and it gives the superintendent the ability to identify whether he needs a formal action, because it takes a lot of time and effort. Yeah. I mean, just basically identifying who's going to determine whether or not it's going to take a lot of resources instead of it. And we already did change. This building on with the. Language in one way. So this would be in addition to the change we
026already added. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anybody have a. An issue. a question okay. MISS MISS Thompson. Does this clarify the majority issue that we've been having. Like what's a majority and consensus. That's in there already. Oh I'm redlined. Yes right here. Fantastic guys. We took out. The word. They changed it to a simple majority okay. Anybody have a an issue with the changes MISS Bowman suggesting. I just have two quick questions on it. There's there's two majority vote things we can do in a workshop. One is to set the next workshop agenda right and the other by majority. We can direct the superintendent to ask questions if it doesn't take up a lot of work, or I'm sorry if he says it will take up a lot of time and effort, we still need
027that majority to tell them to do it anyway, right? So in a workshop we actually can vote, but on two very specific procedural matters. Right? Thanks. Yeah. I love it. Well written okay. And I just in terms of if we're going to put this in policy, it says which it also says on here agendas for the upcoming next two workshops will be reviewed at the conclusion of each session for collaborative planning. We don't do that. So if it's in policy, we should be doing that. So if we could include that as we move forward. That's a great idea. Just since it's in there. Yeah okay. And so everybody's good. We can you have anything else, MISS Bowman? Okay. MISS Thompson. I'm good. Okay. So I'm the last one, and then maybe we'll hurry up and
028get to the last agenda item. So I also gave a a list. And MISS Bautista, do you want to make your suggestions before I go? The two that you had. Oh my gosh. Okay. MISS Bautista had two suggestions for changes and then I'll do mine. So the suggestion would be to move to actually to add the language on in section seven. Can you give us a page number? Yes. Page seven Roman numeral seven. Public participation ad. At the beginning of a the chair of each school board meeting at which public participation is permitted, shall administer the rules of the board for its conduct. The limited purpose of this forum is to allow citizens to speak on matters directly related to the business of the board, in a setting appropriate for for k through 12 students
029and adults. Any concern? And again, if we do that, if we add this, just keep in mind we don't do the rules of the board. We took that out of the script, so we'd have to just add it back in as a point of even if it's to say per policy, we don't have to read everything, but we took it out of the script. I'm sorry, I still can't find where you're inserting this. MISS Bautista. a so page seven at the bottom where it says public participation. A she's saying where there's a colon there it would be a period. And then this. Right. Well, it would be right prior to that sentence. I don't have it printed out. So can you just read it? What you want to add? Yes. The chair of each school
030board meeting at which public participation is permitted, shall administer the rules of the board for its conduct. The limited purpose of this forum is to allow citizens to speak on matters directly related to the business of the board, in a setting appropriate for k through 12 students and adults. Awesome. Okay. Yes, MISS Thompson. I'm sorry, just because we also have like early learning centers in pre-k, should that be inclusive of that? Or do we think that k through 12. Is not our mission? I disagree, but that's not what we're talking about right now. Well, the k through 12 is because we do have student advisers and they are k through 12. Okay. Yes that's fine. But if someone came and talked about early learning centers or they would be allowed. Or college. Or college okay.
031Anybody else have any comments issues. So we're good to add that. Are you okay with that, MR. Sullivan? Okay. And then you have one more. Yes. On page 11. Page 11. Starting with the in section e, the second paragraph, starting with speakers are asked to demonstrate proper decorum and model the district's character traits, cooperation, responsibility all the way to the end of that paragraph. That ends with the word policy. To move that section under. Where we were just reading under decorum section eight, and it would be number one, this would be number one, and then all the other ones would be renumbered. Sounds great. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else have any. Suggestion, any questions on that. So those two okay. And that makes me reduce two of mine. So I'll finish us up here I
032have two recommendations also. So in on page eight where it says under public right now on page eight it's under public participation. It does general rules governing committee reports. And my suggestion is to actually make that Roman numeral seven and separate it on its own, because the, the committee reports aren't really public comment, they are something completely different. So I'd like to just take that section number three, and instead of having it embedded in public participation, make it its own subsection, which would then cause the decorum number to change. So instead of eight being decorum Roman numeral eight, it would be general rules, governing committee reports, and decorum would move to number nine. But aren't committee advisors part of the public? They're not our employees. But they're they're volunteers. So I to me, public comment
033is different than committee reports. So it's just giving the I mean, it's not changing anything. It's just giving it its own space because it's kind of just wonky in the middle of there and then it jumps around in public comment to written. And then there's the committee reports. Then it goes to to some public speaking. And we hear over and over from our committee chairs that they don't feel their value. And I think this would just moving it in there. It doesn't change anything. It's just giving them their own space. And what would you do with number four underneath it? Number four will become number three. Yeah. So just taking it out of embedding in public comment and making it its own section. So three has letters a through g. Right. So that would become.
034Capital a capital a through capital g under section eight. And then decorum would become section nine. And then four would be number three instead of number four. To to make this change, do you need unanimity or just a majority. Just a. Majority okay okay. So anyone disagree with that move okay. Anybody else have a problem okay. So you got that one. You're looking at me. Yes. And so I'm going to cross out two and three because we changed something else. And the last one in section two c which we just made some changes to to add to that. And, and I'll give you the rationale, but to add to the workshop section into the superintendent shall maintain a follow up list of board member questions and requests and share the list with a date for
035follow up response within 48 hours of the workshop. And the reason I'd like to add that there is because I've heard from board member Thompson, MRS. Leonardi mentioned something. We ask a lot of things in the workshop, and we're never sure if we got follow up or didn't get follow up. Not not to, I mean, just for us to follow along. And I've had this discussion with Jessica because we don't always remember what we asked for. So this is and I know you do this anyway. I know that they make a list of it, but if they could share it with us with also when we can, then we can also do a better job of following and holding everybody accountable for the answers that we have. Leonardi yeah, just to add some positivity there,
036I remember when we first joined the board, I was constantly having to follow up about the follow ups, and now we get them in a timely way and it's detailed. So thank you for that and I support this change. Thank you for Andre. [Laughter] I'm not trying to say we don't get them. It's more for us to be able to follow along with that and what our colleagues asked. I love this too, but I just want to add progress monitoring into this. So it's it's a list of board member questions, progress monitoring and requests. You know, progress monitoring is a very specific thing about asking for data and getting it on an ongoing basis. So it's not a one and done. It's like, hey, we really need to track this. And we do that every
037once in a while with one of our some of our major decisions. Okay. Do you understand what Doctor Zeman was adding. You're going to have to help me. I'm sorry. Just add the words progress monitoring after questions. So be a list of board member questions. Progress monitoring and requests okay. And then share that list. And Doctor Hepburn, do you. Understand I was actually going to clarify for John. Okay. Perfect. All right. Anybody else have anything they want to add or change to this. Are you good. We're good okay. One more policy okay. One more we still and see how we go. We might make dinner. Yes, it'll be a late one. But the last item for discussion is rule development policy. 9030 sponsorships, banners and signage. I turn it over to staff for a brief
038presentation. I think staff is going to go to the to discussion. Straight to discussion. But I think one of the major, I guess requests from the board was the possibility of the inclusion of photos in the banner. But I think MISS Bautista and her team want to speak to that. Before we go there. Okay, MISS Bautista. So I would like to introduce Giselle LeMay. Yay! We get to Hazar. Good evening everyone. She's been Hayes. I made it through. a new addition to any addition to the general counsel's office, and she will be over academics and Esq. This is not a standard meeting. We usually do much worse. Good to know. Thank you. Please come back. Yes, sir. We were very kind to her the other day at the luncheon. Legal. So she'll stay. Thank you.
039She likes. We established she likes kids and puppies. So there. We go. Perfect. Okay. All right, so if if you would like to talk about just a little bit of the. You know what, that the banner policy is supposed to be government speech for the district as opposed d to vendoromommercial spee.. And so, you know, one of the things that we looked at was the fact that we wanted to do this policy. Then, if you recall, this policy came about as a result of a lawsuit that was filed against the school board. So one of the things that we wanted to make sure is that we changed the policy to conform to very specific case law, the mech case, and that when we were in front of the court for that particular case that was
040filed against the district, one of the things that one of the representations that were made to the court was that we our policy was going to be very similar to the the policy from Palm Beach. And that policy specifically states no photographs. And the reason for that is because when you put photographs into a banner, it's starting to look more and more like an ad, as opposed to the speech of the government thanking its. Pies. Or, you know, so I don't know if Giselle, you would like to add anything else. Yeah. I guess the the concern, particularly with the, the photographs, is that it could open the door for the, the school engaging in private speech rather than viewpoint government speech. The concern is the the policy as it stands does not allow for it's
041not supposed to be construed, construed as creating a public forum for political and religious expressive activity. So the concern is, if we have banners that now include photographs and a particular person in a photograph MAY have some sort of garment in their head that MAY be construed as a political expression, that MAY be seen to the public as some sort of private speech and some sort of of religious expression, expressive activity, because it is the banner is being sponsored by the, by the board, by the, by the, the Broward. And the other thing is the display of the banners. And it's if you look at the current policy under intent b and c, it's very specifically says it's not it's not supposed to be construed as advertising. Now, when you're adding pictures and other things
042not as uniform, it MAY come across as advertising. So I guess that's the major concern. Did you want. To know? I mean, that's that's all we have. I don't know if you have any questions. I, I'm not sure that the policy that is here, is it the same policy that with all the changes that were made, or because I know we had added some language about, because one of the concerns is that, you know, we want to make sure that, of course, that the policy that is adopted by the board is implemented with fidelity in the field. And so one of the problems that we have seen is that and this is not related to what the lawsuit was about, which was, you know, religious and political activity. It was more about the uniformity of
043the banners. And so there are still some banners that are not compliant with the size. And and you know what the policy states. So we wanted to add some language to sort of like give all the banners an opportunity to catch up without losing any money for the the different vendors that MAY have paid for them. So we had like sort of like a grandfather language added to the policy, talking about. That, you know, any sponsorship agreements that were in effect prior to the adoption of the policy shall continue to be governed by the terms and conditions of the policy in effect at the time, and any renewals or extensions or modifications of such agreements shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this policy. Just to give everybody an opportunity to. Well, this
044does not I don't know, I don't think this this language made it to the revisions. No, I think you off Friday evening, late Friday evening I the beauty of what you just said I think that's the easiest part. It allows for us to fully implement the policy, very similar to the memos that went out to schools so that we we have some banners that are out there that had sponsorship agreements that were for OCTOBER, AUGUST, JANUARY of 2026. So what this will allow, once we update the policy, we'll have a clean start for July 1st of 2026. And outside of the photographs, which I just kind of want to put put back around the table, a lot of the legwork that was done with staff was that is the biggest request that has come from
045all the communities has been around that photograph. So the conversation today is really big on the photograph. And I think the community earlier today, I think it was North Area Advisory indicated something that I think would cause a problem specifically because it would further be more of an advertisement. So we we are clear on that. And I think really where we've landed ourselves is how do we accomplish this? By identifying the ability to have a photo on there. And I will share with you. It is a big component when you look at the policy. It is designed for us to attract people to sponsor and support our schools. And we do have a lot of stakeholders over the years who have been big sponsors and supporters of the schools through the photographs, but it is
046legitimate. I met with the legal team and it is a legitimate concern. If someone has a photograph and let's just say they are a realtor and they have some type of religious headband on their beautiful photo photo, professional photo, it MAY have a headband and we wouldn't be able to control that. So that's one of the examples that we came. So either we are in a place where legal could help us navigate through the photograph or or I don't know what the other options are. So that just kind of summarizes. It well. So I, you know, if you drive a little bit north of Broward to Palm Beach and look around the schools, like for example, in the Boca area, you would see that the banners that they have on the school fences are very,
047very uniform. They have, for example, there's one that I can recall around Palmetto Park Drive and there's a school there, and apparently the colors of the school are gold and black. All of the banners are gold and black. All of the banners are exactly the same size. All of the banners have the exact same font size within the banner. The only thing that is different is that they do allow for the logo of the of the company. And you know, whatever information I think is like a website and a telephone number or something like that. Other than that, the bigger letters actually that were part of the case. And that's why there is also some, some pictures in that case of the banners from Palm Beach and ultimately the the school district prevailed in that
048case because they because of all the control they exert over the shape, size, font, everything about the banner that they said it was the district was speaking as the government as opposed to. As opposed to a vendor speaking. Then you when you have a vendor speaking, then that's when you come into problems where you know, you're allowing one, one party to say something. You should allow everybody else to speak. You should allow religious organizations to speak. But if it is the, the, the, the Broward County district speaking, then you basically get rid of a lot of those issues. And so what we've done on page eight, I think it's helpful to talk about what we've implemented thus far. If you look in the presentation. So that's three different locations, if you will, that if you
049went over to Falcon Cove, all the banners would look that way at Falcon Cove by that example. So, you know, if you're Falcon Cove, you see the school colors. It will be laid out that way. The same with West Pine Middle School. Those are the school colors. You you go to that school. Those banners would always all look that way. And the last one is Lakeside. Elementary is also another example. If you go to Lakeside Elementary, you will see that they will, whether it's in the inside or whether it's on the outside. That's what those banners would look appear for those schools. And as the district, the way the policy and the way we've implemented it is that the school colors. So I'm an alumni of Dillard. So my my school colors will look a
050little bit different in that community than Sawgrass Springs Middle School. Because in another example there, that that school is using that sample showcase for people to see on their website, become a partner with Sawgrass Springs Middle School. So I also work with them to attract partners to the school. So those three illustrations are what we have now. And lastly, I just want to share the attempt before, when the board initially asked, the request was if you look at page seven, that is just for illustration purposes of how we could accomplish if someone was using a photo, just to use that as an illustration. And since we're Broward, a double a-rated school district, and choose the best, choose bcc, I took it upon myself to include this. So advertisement is for Broward schools, but that's a
051sample of what we could do if we are able to add the photo. Okay. Thank you. Public comment I have two people. I don't see them there, but we'll just go through the process. Ada Ada from Coral Springs. No. Marianna. Dugo. Nope. Okay. Board member discussion, MRS. Bowman. Thanks, chair. Okay, so I discussed this with MISS Batista yesterday. And I guess it we have to look at what the the circumstances were when we entered into when we developed this policy, I think is probably the, the easiest way to go back because MISS Batista was saying when we approved this policy, I believe we were still in the litigation or had just we were in the litigation. Right? So we we represented or the school district represented to the court that we were going to change
052the policy so that it generally mirrored or basically had the same provisions as the Palm Beach County policy. So it's like a flip from advertising to the opposite. It's an acknowledgment. So it's not like I understand that we have traditionally used the banners as a revenue generator, and it has essentially been an advertisement for, you know, whatever business or whoever is sponsoring it. But the if the purpose of the exercise is to avoid controversial, potentially controversial government speech being sued again, and also. Going forward, having misrepresented to the court what we were going to do then. I think it's pretty. Risky to start turning the banners back into. What can be construed as advertisements with the pictures, even though I know that it would attract more banner usage. But I think that, you know, the
053we in this particular situation, I think we should take the advice of, well, I usually think this, but I think that the, the legal aspect of it puts us kind of in jeopardy if we're going to go back on what we've represented to the court in order to have the case dismissed, because the judge relied on our representations to get rid of a lawsuit and the money that we're going to get bring. I mean, we could run the numbers, but the money you're bringing in to have a banner on a fence is probably collectively going to be less than whatever damages and legal fees we have to pay for relitigating this and coming back with kind of unclean hands, having not done what we said we were going to do. And if I MAY, MADAM
054Chair, I'd like to read something from the opinion of the judge in in that case, you know, in the Stevens versus the school board case and one of the paragraphs, it says, in fact, when government laws or policies have been challenged by the Supreme Court has held almost uniformly that cessation of the challenged behavior moots the suit. This is because courts are more likely to trust public defendants to honor a professed commitment to change ways. So I you know, I know that the board members, you guys are the ones out there. And this MAY not be the most popular approach, but I think it's the safest approach from a legal standpoint. And and I have to say that, you know, if looking at the, you know, the schools in Palm Beach, when I drive by,
055there is any indication I don't think they are. I mean, I think there's there are a lot of vendors that are buying the banners. Add just one more thing. I, you know, I believe that our the plaintiff in the case is a is a pretty active plaintiff. And so in the event that we were not honoring what we said in court, I believe, you know, you could probably be pretty well assured that you're going to see that lawsuit come back again in some kind of form. Once a year. Okay. Is that it? MRS. Alhadeff? Yes. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. Hello? We hear you. I don't think she can hear us. Can you hear us. Having the pictures on it is a really big deal. This is a big. This
056is a huge fundraiser for district, for schools bringing in thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars. You know, it's the. We have charter schools that have the banners with the pictures on it. And and we're going to lose lots of money, 50 to $100,000 or more. And they're just going to go to the charter school and put up their banner. I really, truly believe that we need to find a way to be able to put the pictures on the banners and do it legally, to be able to accommodate these companies that want to give back to to the schools and donate this money to be recognized by the school district. So I'm, I would ask the board that we we figure this out because we are going to lose a lot of money
057going back to our schools, going back to students. And. I think this is a really important aspect of these of these banners. Okay. Is that it, MRS. Alhadeff? For now. Okay. Doctor Zieman. MRS. Leonardi. So I'm trying to understand what so. I am struggling with the idea that adding a photo and I'll preface this with like, I really don't care about photos on banners or not. Like if I'm trying to advertise, I don't know that I would include a photo, but that's neither here nor there. People feel strongly about it. I guess I just don't understand how including a photo makes it an advertisement, but not including a logo and a phone number to like be able to contact that business is not an advertisement. So help me understand that. MISS Bautista. So it comes
058down to the way that the images are displayed. I think some of the, for example, in the. I think in the presentation for this, for this item, you know, some of the items there and I don't know if, if this is the, if I have the right. But they, you know, they, they did not look, I mean, the banners did look like commercial speech. So. If you know, if we, if we were to move forward with, well, whether it's the logo or, you know, a picture or whatever, it cannot occupy, like, you know, the entire banner. And when you drive by, it's going to look like it's not the district saying thank you to the sponsors, but rather is the the vendors speaking on their own behalf, which would constitute commercial speech. If it. If
059the banner literally said thank you to Paul's plumbing, I'm sorry. And they have a picture of Paul. I don't understand how that isn't saying thank you to Paul the plumber like to me putting the picture on having an email address, a phone number, you know, the company logo. I mean, you're saying thank you to the guy for donating 500 or $1000 to the school. I don't understand the law about why a picture tips that over the scale and makes it a commercial advertisement, like we're literally wanting to say thank you. And we put his picture up. So if you run into him at Publix, you'll know we said, thank you to Paul. MRS. Leonardi. Yeah, I mean, I guess that's another way to to pose my my question. [Laughter] And I guess I had another
060question like, because I think I heard some concerns around like religious or political speech. So is the is there a separate concern about like if I, if Paul was wearing a hat in his photo that said, like Jesus is great, is that is that religious speech? Is that part of the like? You know what I mean or not? That I do believe that Jesus is great. I'll profess that in front of everyone. But is the idea that, like religious or political speech in the photo is a concern, or that the that the photo, it makes it an advertise? Like I guess I'm confused. So it could potentially be both right under that scenario that you described. Okay. So there's two separate concerns about the photos. The like someone wearing a hat that said something that
061was religious or political, and then also that I guess I just I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't I don't see how a logo, including a logo and a phone number, like a way to contact a business is not an advertisement. But then adding a photo makes it an advertisement. MISS LeMay, would would you. Like to? So the way I look at it, there are two different issues. The issues with the photographs is are you opening the door for potential expensive, for example, as an example, expensive religious activity activity. If you're having somebody wearing a head scarf or yarmulke, it might come across as now the board is sponsoring certain religion is expressing certain religion. So that's problem number one. The problem with the advertising simply advertising is not allowed. So it should
062not be advertising. And that's the problem here that the public MAY be construing these banners advertising and you can't. The whole point of the banner is supposed to bend this is citing to Mac asac as itit relati to o thealalm Beach policy. The purpose of the banner is to visibly recognize the business partners that provide a vital role in sponsorship of key programs. Sponsors recognize the banners to provide adequate funding for important programs and activities. So that's why at the bottom are all the banners should say thank you to our partner in education and should include their their logo or photo, if that's what we're going to agree on in the same location and have be in conformity and in uniform to every school into the same colors. So now you're not advertising the business,
063you're simply saying thank you for your donation. And that's the other thing. It's a donation. Okay, so but what if my logo includes a religious symbol. Then then you. Then it'll come across as now the government engaging in some sort. Right. So First Amendment issue. That's my that's my. Like not allowed per the policy. Right. Okay. So why couldn't we include it in our policy that the photo cannot have religious. We discussed that. So yeah I guess that was our plan b as part of a discussion. Plan b. It would be apply some sort of safeguards in terms of what is allowed for these photographs. Now, let me ask you that this question then, because someone wearing a yarmulke or hijab is not necessarily an expression of like, I want you to convert to my
064religion. Like so I would hope that we're not like going to discriminate and say, like in the photo, you can't be wearing a hijab or a yarmulke, right? Well, so the problem is right that if this if we are the if the government is speaking, that means the school board is making the statement. And there is someone now with religious garb on, does that then carry the, the imprimatur of the of the government? Absolutely not. Well. We can. Think of. a Jewish member who wears every day a yarmulke. And we're not saying anything about his religion. It's just he happens through his own religious expression to wear a yarmulke every day. This isn't that hard. What if what if we made a uniform picture? It had to be like a school picture. I agree, DR.
065Zeman. What if it. What if it's a school picture everyone can wear? Everyone has to be in a school picture and then it'll be uniform. And then we're thinking, yeah, you can wear your yarmulke. You can wear dashikis. But we're controlling the I mean, I don't know, that's like, if it's not, it's like a, it's the same picture. So you know, if everyone's dying to have their picture out there. This MAY help clarify the goal. The goal is these are businesses. They're our partners in education. And they're they must be able to do work in the state of Florida. So we start with that. So it's just not Erik Chisholm's picture there. It is a business that, for example, if you are a realtor, it's now Eric as a realtor. But I'm with century 21.
066So I end up with my picture, as you know, as realtors, the century 21 does not have a picture. It has a logo. So it will be Erik Chisholm picture because I'm that realtor and century 21. So that's what we are trying to accomplish with a medical office or architectural firm or something along those lines. But if it's Erik Chisholm's architectural firm, then you will see Erik Chisholm's picture. And I'm certified to do law in the state of Florida, per the policy. As it stands right now, without the picture. MADAM Chair, I think we have the direction needed. The board wants photos included in the policy. We'll work with legal to come up with a way to best position that for the board. Final adoption. I have. a. Quick yes. I had a quick question
067also just to. Tie same idea here for for Realtors logos. It's it's it's that's often their logo like right. So this policy what's presented to us with the red line changes includes that. That is correct. Now that would be the. Based on what you said is the intent that every logo would have a picture. I mean every sorry every banner would have a picture and a logo. Not necessarily. It depends on the. It could if they. Want, I would say the majority of them would not have the picture. And I think you see the illustrations in there. Most times it would be the realtor. That's traditionally where the pictures are coming up, or professional business or something along those lines. Okay. MRS. Leonardi, do you have anything else? No, I. Yeah, okay. MISS Thompson. I'm,
068I'm supportive of I'm confused because in our like, marketing materials, we have students from every background and faith and religion and like that's not a problem. But like, putting it on a banner is suddenly like promoting one religion over another. Like, I get that lawyers keep us safe. I love you guys. But like, I feel like that's a little bit of a stretch. I don't want to get sued. Obviously, but like. i think it seems important to the people that support us, especially the realtor community for this picture. And MISS Alhadeff, I don't know what she's doing in district four, but that's a lot of money that's coming into her community. That's good for her. But I think within a legal bounds and without bringing up that issue that like we told the judge one
069thing and now we might be going back like that's a little nerve wracking. I gotta learn. Well, as I always say, I never tell you what to do. I only give you what the potential risks, legal from a legal perspective, are. So, you know, I believe it's a it's a slippery slope if you start putting pictures. I think that MAY be a problem. But if the, you know, the appetite from the board is that, you know, we're going to, you know, try to put the pictures in, make them uniform, have them, you know, be a certain size on a particular place in the in the banner, you know, have them control to a certain extent. And then, you know, if and when we ever get challenged in court, you know, we'll figure out whether that
070was the right decision or not. If that's where the board wants to go, that's fine. I mean, that's that's your prerogative. You know, all I'm saying is that the safest way to proceed would be without the photographs. By a banner. For Fort Lauderdale High School right now to say thank you, MR. Batiste, for your legal advice. I'm going to put a picture of her right there. MISS Thompson, did you have anything else? And we'll finish up with MR. Sarver. Thank you. I'm going to move on from the photos. I really don't have. I really don't care one way or another with the photos. But let me tell you what I do care about. I think this policy is written is is unconstitutional. Specifically section four, subsection f-4, in which we've defined inappropriate sponsorship to include
071churches, organizations, places of worship, and anything that promotes or seeks to establish a religious tenant or a position about religion or spirituality. This Supreme Court and various federal courts, including in this state, have repeatedly confirmed that governments MAY not discriminate against the speech of organizations holding a religious viewpoint. We got the Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia versus comer case in 2018 out of the us Supreme Court, which specifically held that when a state denies an otherwise generally available benefit solely on the account of religious identity without satisfying strict scrutiny, it violates the Free Exercise Clause. A church has a right to participate in a government benefit program without having to disavow its religious character. In 2022, the us Supreme Court gave us the case versus the city of Boston, in which they were adamant in
072a nine nothing decision, saying that when a government does not speak for itself, it MAY not exclude speech based on religious viewpoint, as doing so constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination. Our policy as written is unconstitutional and contradicts crystal clear Florida and United States court precedent on these these issues, these religious organizations who hold a religious viewpoint, must be treated the same way as all our other community partners, just like our realtors, just like Joe the Plumber, everybody else who wants to have their pictures and their banners up there should be treated the same as our religious organizations now. Free speech is an entitlement that everybody enjoys, even Satanists. I don't agree with them. I would never participate with them, but they do have a right to free speech in this country. I realize that there was
073a lawsuit in which a gentleman who claimed to have a legitimate religious organization filed against this district, I was not on this board when that happened. I was not involved in that lawsuit. I don't know if his if his standing was ever challenged in that lawsuit, because everything I've read about that leads me to believe that that was not a legitimate religious organization, that that gentleman was running and that he was just doing it for show. That being said, this district bent the knee and we said whatever we said to the judge, and we got out of that case, we were dismissed or however however it went. So I'm happy. I'm never one that likes to be involved in protracted litigation, but the reality is you MAY have gotten out of one lawsuit, but what
074about the next one? And the one after that? Because if we keep this policy as it is and we continue to discriminate against legitimate places of worship solely by virtue of their religious viewpoints and prevent them from putting up these types of signage, it's just a matter of time before we get sued again. And if that happens and there's a legitimate religious organization that's backed by a legitimate lawyer or lawyers prosecuting that action, I don't believe that's going to end well for the district. So what I would ask is that this entire section in subsection e4, which starts with, quote, examples of inappropriate, inappropriate sponsorship banners signages include and are limited to churches, organizations, which is their primary function. Furthers, promote or seeks to establish a religious tenant or position about religion or spirituality. Be
075completely removed from this policy. We cannot continue to discriminate against legitimate places of worship just because you MAY not like that religion or you don't practice that religion, they still have a right to be there. Under the Florida Constitution and under the United States Constitution. So once again, I'm glad we got out of that situation we had where you told a judge that we were going to take a picture down or whatever it was, but it's just a matter of time before we get sued again by somebody who actually knows what they're doing and they're going to win. If we continue to discriminate against our houses of worship. Thank you. So the policy, as it is written, is absolutely not unconstitutional. It will it will pass constitutional muster. And the reason that it does that
076is that the case law and that MR. Rivera was referring to it is accurate. But the key is that in one of the sentences that he read is that when the government is not speaking for itself, and the whole thing is that that is exactly what we're doing here, the whole point of the banners and the reason we changed the policy was to make the banners government speech. And I think everyone is familiar with the Establishment Clause. And the Establishment Clause says that you cannot have you have to be neutral as to all religions and therefore the policy as written keeps the district neutral and and out of any issues with viewpoint discrimination. If I MAY, the district does not endorse the church or the synagogue or the mosque by treating it equally with other
077community sponsors. We don't. We're not saying bc says convert to Christianity or you know, you're going to go to hell. It doesn't say that this all started with a with with a with a sign that literally said the Pentecostals of Cooper City is is in great partnership with Cooper City High School. Partners in education Cooper City Church. That's what this started with. And for whatever reason, for the decision that was made, this district, this board opted to to to write a policy in which it's now required that that sign had to come down. All the church was asking for with that sign was to be treated equally with other community sponsors. The district was not endorsing the church in any way, shape or form. So, MR. Bautista, I respectfully disagree. I've looked at this case
078law, and again, I'm glad we were able to get out of that situation by whatever we told the court. But I do think when a legitimate organization comes knocking with a legitimate backing and lawyers who actually are, you know, constitutional First Amendment scholars, and they want to cause this district some damage with this policy. I believe they're going to be able to accomplish that. I'd like to ask a question, MADAM Chair. Ask ask away. If a lawsuit is filed for declaratory relief based on discrimination as to whether or not the Church of Satanists couldn't get in, versus the Pentecostals of Cooper City. Do you have the ability, under any state or federal statute, to recover monetary damages from the district? In the event that we are sued. MISS Bautista? Are you asking if the plaintiffs
079would have the ability. To. Is there a cause of action? Because in my mind, I think it would just be a Dec action, right? You ask a court for a declaratory relief, interpret this. Is it constitutional, yes or no? If we litigate it and we lose, we pay our attorney's fees. They pay their attorney's fees. What I'm asking for and and I'm not a constitutional lawyer, nor would I ever care to be one. What I'm asking is, is there a cause of action that they could bring against us for this policy in which they would recover monetary damages like intentional infliction of emotional distress or or something that would result in monetary damages? For us not giving these banners to religious organizations, or would it just be a Dec action? So the the way that
080it would work under federal law is that you would bring a civil rights case under section 1983, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, for the violation of the First Amendment. And if you succeed, what happens is, is that under that vehicle, that statute, then you get prevailing side attorney's fees. That's it. No monetary damages, just fees, right? Yes. Okay. So if if the if the district gets sued, right. Is that something that our in-house lawyers, which apparently we now have another one is that is that a total of ten that we have in-house. No. MISS Lima is she will be taking over someone who is relocating. Okay. So MISS Lamay your number nine, then? She's number eight. Eight. Okay. Number eight. And welcome, by the way. I don't think we've met. Pleasure to meet you. Thank you.
081So number eight. Number eight. So we have we have eight in-house lawyers. Are any of them MISS Bautista equipped to handle a 1983 action for religious discrimination? Or would we have to outsource this to whoever? With the current staff? And being that I was, I would have been the lawyer that would have handled those cases in the past. We would probably have to outsource them. Okay. And I know this is a question that lawyers always hate. If you were to have to defend a case like this ballpark, how much in legal fees do you think this would take to get to a summary judgment? So I can tell you that how much it cost to get to this case that we look at with MR. Stephens, I think it was somewhere in the vicinity of
08250,000. 50. 50,000, $50,000. Yes. Okay. Which in the grand scheme of the world is is for legal fees, is, is is not a tremendous amount. I, I, I would question if if the district were sued by someone who knew what they were doing as opposed to a I think he was pro se was he not? He MAY be pro se, but this is like the 20th case that he's filed in court. So he's like a professional. But he's not a licensed barred lawyer. Correct. Okay. So my I guess where I'm getting at is if there was actually somebody who knew what they were doing and sued us, the reality is we'd probably spend more than $50,000 in legal fees defending something like this if it was a 1983 claim. Right? It's possible. Thank you. Okay.
083Does anybody is there agreement on taking out that particular clause that MR. Saavedra just mentioned? Anybody a yes for that. Okay. MISS Thompson, you have a question? I'm sorry. So does that mean that churches then could buy ads or the Satanists could buy ads? Like, everyone could buy ads, and we're just going to chance it on if we get sued. Is that what that clause? Bars from everybody? Nobody is allowed to buy them? No. What do you mean, no? Currently they're excluded, like all of them. But if we put that clause back in, then we just gamble. And if we get sued is that. I'm just trying to understand the ramifications of taking this section out. MISS Bautista. Correct. If the clause were to be taken out, yes. Then churches as well as the Church
084of Satan or, you know, the Church of Hamas or whoever could put an ad or a banner up at the on the school board fence. And who's to determine what's legitimate, because you brought that up several times about if it's a legitimate church, if it's a legitimate organization, like who determines legitimacy of someone's religion? Usually if someone sues and they say that that is their religion, the court will take it as, as true that that is a legitimate religion. I okay. MAY I just very briefly to that because I, I looked that up because that is that is an interesting inquiry and I'm glad you asked it. The there are several means that the federal government uses to determine particularly for tax status. And I'm looking at the Irs.Gov website. There are certain characteristics that
085are generally attributed to churches. Okay. These attributes of a church have been developed by the irs and by various court decisions over the years. There's a there's like 10 or 12 bullet points here that the irs will use to determine if you have a legitimate place of worship, a recognized cream, and a creed and form of worship, a formal code of doctrine and discipline, distinct religious history, organization and ordained ministers, literature of y yr n eablished places s worship.P.Egular cgrgregations. Regular r religious servis.S. S ee government wi actually outline, okay, what they deem to be the quote unquote, certain characteristics which are generally attributed to religion and whether or not you would, I guess, in this case, qualify for whatever exemptions the government gives, gives to churches. So I do think that there is a
086way to carve out, you know, the Church of Spaghetti monsters, right? Who says, you know, we're a legitimate church, so we want to do whatever we can without running afoul of anybody's first amendment of religious expression rights. Looking at the federal government and specifically the irs own guidelines. MISS Bautista, and we have 15 minutes left in our very, very, very long day. So just. Oh, well, I don't know if MISS Bautista wanted to. Oh, MISS. I think this policy needs a little work. That's why. I mean. It's like. It's very short policy. If we could get, you know, to MR. Rivera's point, if it's a possibility that we could get around all of these issues, then great. Then we can advertise the way we have been all the time. If we get rid of the
087religious exemption that was or whatever. You know, if we get rid of whatever we put into this policy to get to comply with the lawsuit so that we don't have that problem again, then we just wasted a lot of time. I, I don't think that we're ready to do anything on this right now. It's brought up more questions than answers. Well, I can share with you is that this policy right now is it was drafted to mirror the Palm Beach policy, the Palm Beach policy also has, you know, the same clause in there. And the Palm Beach policy was found to be constitutional by the 11th Circuit. Terrific. Can we support this and move on? So we're I'm trying. So everyone that agrees with the suggestion that MR. Saavedra made, we have to be able
088to let staff know whether we want to take that section out or not. So who who agrees with taking out the section that says religious organizations can't participate? Is there anyone that agrees with that? No. Okay. Just MR. Severa. So we're we're going to leave it in for now based on. All right, anybody else with policy? So I think we landed on we want photos. Right. So that's what I was going to say. So the idea is that we would come up with some language to be able to allow photographs in some. Consistent manner across all the banners. And it has to be a certain size and etc. I repeat, the staff has direction needed to bring this back for final adoption board photo with the parameters from legal. MRS. Rupert, did you want to
089say something? No, actually, I didn't get a chance to do a thumbs up or a thumbs down. I think just in general, there was enough people who spoke about it that they got the impression photos were okay. We didn't do an up or down really okay. So there. You go. Okay, so there's one person that says no to the photos. I think MRS. Rupert. Okay. So we'll just put the language in and. Okay. When it comes back. If there's any. Well let's do let's just wait, wait. Mr. Let's thumbs up or down for photos. So let's just make sure. Thumbs up, all those thumbs up. All those in. Well, we're not voting if you if you're okay with the photos staying in the policy, indicate with thumbs up. If you're not thumbs. Down, thumbs up.
090Alhadeff. Oh we got five. We have three. MR. Savary, you don't have. Okay. So I think there's consensus for photos. So I'll repeat the direction that staff has is to bring back the policy with. Perfect. Okay. At this time, do any of my colleagues have anything to bring to the board or student success to share? I have two things real quick. First, first off, it is SEPTEMBER is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, so I just wanted to make everyone aware of that you should be wearing. If you could wear gold ribbons to to commemorate that and and any chance you have to make sure people are are paying attention to childhood cancer awareness. And this is just a point, a quick point of privilege. The Florida School Board Association is proud to recognize Jessica Palomino as
091a valued member of the Broward School District. As a Florida School Board's Associated Certified Support Professional. This distinguished honor is awarded to school board member support personnel who demonstrated an exceptional commitment to professional development and serve the public and and service to public education. The csp program is designed to elevate and acknowledge the vital role that support staff play in the daily operations of long term success of Florida public schools. By meeting the program's rigorous training and development requirements, Palomino has shown dedication to continuous improvement and excellence in her role. So congratulations! Also shout out to Andrea, Dolores and d. I don't know Mara. What's d's last name? Danielle. Saint Leone has also completed the program, and I'm very proud because Ela. Yes, and Ellen actually helped create the program. And I'm always proud. Of
092the leadership of Ellen. There. We are making strides. To everybody that got this, this thing, this award. [Laughter] Thank you. Oh I did not get. Oh hold on, hold on chair I just want to remind the public we remind the board any constituents that MAY still be listening. Our first redefining community conversation is tomorrow at 6 P.M. At Miramar High School. Doors open at 530. A reminder to not bring large bags, and participants will be wanted as they're entering the building. Thank you. The scheduled order of business for this school board workshop of the School Board of Broward County, Florida has been completed. Seeing no obligation, I now adjourn the meeting with ten minutes left. So.