001shortly] thananyou and d welcome back toto r scschoolboard workrkop. Our next item is rule development . MADAM Chair, do you want to do public comment. I don't have a presentation but we do have a few motions where board memebers have. I have that as well, but that's board discussion. I'm turn iting over to staff to give a presentation. I don't want to get yelled at. we have to start the budget hearing right at 5:30, so unless the board wants us to present, there is minimum changes to 1020 and the red line. thank you, we have public comment, DR. Nathalie lynch-walsh. Speaker: good evening, DR. Nathalie lynch-walsh, plantation florida. Some items and some statutes so share with you related to this policy. So on page 2, roman numeral 2, agenda be will be reviewed, if you
002can make the agendas public facing, when I first started volunteering, you can see three months and plan yourself accordingly. That disappeared so bringing that would be great. Page 5c, there is a b item next week, so page 5, item c. The thaingz board memebers can bring to the board, number 6 says selecting or directing your direct reports I don't know how that fits into any of those. I sent an email, hopefully you read it, to me, it borders on breech of contract but we'll see. Number 3, roman numeral 7, public participation. And this is where it starts getting getting interesting. Because the public, so you're, advisory and the public have all been lumped in, I would suggest separating those two, because there are statutes governing the general public, which is florida at statute, sta traoej
003I can lawsuits prohibited, so you would want to point out reference and include language related so that statute in here, preferably. And some of the government MAY not file or cause to be filed through its employees or agents, cause of action, counter claim against another person or entity without merit because they have exercises the constitutional right of free speech in connection to right to peacefully assemble, to instruct representatives of government or grievances, blah blah blah, is protected by you know, the first amendment. So that applies to everybody that would come in here to speak so long as they're not breaking any other laws. But more importantly, there is something called the florida volunteer protection act which is florida statute, 768.355 which means members of elected boards, councils commissions, blah blah should incur no civil liability
004and should have immunity for acts or omissions. So, that is relevant because there are two memos from deputy general council, vignola explaining how that applies to committees and there is no protection being offered to committee members in this policy. We basically have taxation with no representation. thank you, thank you very much. Any other public comment? Okay, MS. Leonardi? thank you. I was just going to suggest one change and I don't know how my colleagues will feel about it. But on page 8, section 3-a. We've heard repeatedly from our committee chairs that coming before us every month, is very ownerous both to be physically be here to issue the reports. We've heard that they feel that the committee reports section of the meeting is a little bit rushed. So I, I would be interested to hear
005what my colleagues think about moving it from monthly to quarterly. Just because of to be respectful of the time of our committee chairs and to be able to have like a full dialogue and discussion, but I would be interested to hear from my colleagues on that. That is all I have. okay, do you want to hear from colleagues now? Or as they? it's up to you, MADAM Chair. okay, well I'll speak to that quickly. I think, I think the way we've changed it, it's a little better. I do know that there is some inconsistency that was expressed to me that sometimes it's for an hour, sometimes it's for 90 minutes, so I think the agendas moving forward should be consistent about at least an hour and a half for committee reports section on there. But
006I think quarterly wouldn't give them the feedback that they need and the timely manner that they're asking it for it, I mean. I know originally they had some concerns about things. I think it's suppose to, and I guess MS. Batista, can you answer this, are committee reports suppose to be monthly? Or is that a legal? no it's not legal, it's a preference to board to board. well my preference is to continue to have them monthly, I would not want them to think that we're just pushing them to come to us once every three to four months as oppose today every month. My preference is to leave it. Anybody else on MS. Leonardi's? MR. Zeman. I support, quarterly. when I was a chair, we submitted monthly reports to make sure we got it interesting and if
007the city commission found interesting, we would invited. But given that we don't do that part, and they can put more time into it, usually their items are not one month of urgency, and so I would rather have great discussions in three months than to have a good one every month. okay, MS. Alhadeff. what if they did a written report monthly but came in-person quarterly, but we also gave them the ability if they could not be here physically to call in? I think that's in the policy, it says they can, we changed that, if I'm not mistaken. I have to go through there, we did allow them to come in virtually. if that could be communicated to them so they're aware of that. I get, the emails that they get and if I'm not mistaken, it
008does tell them that. But just to jump in again, I would hate to have this discussion right now, and make a change on that when we didn't ask the committee chairs, I know, it's our meetings but we're making a big change for them without them knowing it was coming or be able to give us any feedback on it. I think it should stay monthly. Anybody else? did the committees ask for this? no, not that I know of. I mean, I'll just, listening to their feedback in their meetings, you know, we've heard repeatedly that it's ownerous to be here in-person, every month p I appreciate that we made the decision to move it to virtual but I really think, you know, I don't know, I listen to their reports, they talk about it this. I was
009just reacting to it. okay. and I appreciate MS. Alhadeff's discussion that doing a written report every month, mia -- my appointees give me a report every month anyway. : this is just a suggestion. thank you, I also had a suggestion on 1020. Do you want me to wait? MS. Leonardi. Staff would need some consensus. I'm okay keeping it monthly. okay. MS. Bulman. so we agreed to do do a quarterly t could come as a red line and then vote on it. yes. I agree with MS. Leonardi, if you listen to the feedback, that is definitely something that I've also been hearing, so I guess we'll hear whether or not that is actually true, if we put it on the red line. MS. Thompson? I appreciate this suggestion and where it's coming from and I very
010much want to support it. I do do the committees have going to have a problem with it, especially since I think we had an hour debate on whether we can enforce them to send us reports, and it should be shall or o could or MAY, so I think the committees really have already spoken on it. If anything, I think they want more time during the workshop which I wouldn't necessarily agree with. But, I think to change it, I think if we change it in the policy, they're just going to come out at the meeting and then we're going to go to rule development because it will be a susintent change? Susintent? Substantive, whatever, so for that reason, would I like to keep it monthly but I support the quarterly. MS. Leonardi. thanks, I guess I
011have a question about the process. so if we were not to discuss a potential change to the policy? now is the time. MR. Holness. I support quarterly. so we have consensus. we have consensus, it would change to quarterly but we would still allow them to write monthly reports. yes. all right, thank you. next is DR. Zeman. it's really a suggested change. You know b a year ago, we decided to set a standard for our workshop. Topics, I just found a place to. It's real easy to get wrapped up in the adult issues and the things that while important aren't really about students and learning. And I feel like, our meeting should always focus as a majority of our time and effort on our students and learning. thank you. so I passed around this letter head
012thing, which looks beautiful but it's over designed. thank you for that. I have a question, MS. Batista. Would this make sense in policy 1020 or policy 1000? no it would make sense in this policy if you're dictating, you know, what the content of the workshops should be. okay. So on, 2c, on the red line it does say, school board workshops are formed for discussion and informational sharing on operational policy and students centered topic is your suggestion to put in there, at least 50 percent of the time? if you look at the bottom of that page right around rational it will show the resulting policy if this is a good idea to the colleagues. It ads, it should allocate 50 percent of the meeting to student centered topics. okay. Okay, is there anyone that disagrees with
013including this in the policy? MS. Bulman? I don't disagree with putting it in the policy. thank you. you're welcome, I wonder if we can just add a little more wiggle room. Something that gives us flexibility in case we have to address topics that are not going to be that. that's why I said should instead of must. right, but we should make our best effort or something like that. if our policy document, when we say should, it's not a must. If it's a must, we would count minutes, and we would not do that. And there are times when you need flexibility. So it's really guidance that we're centered around student's learning. I understand the, but I thought we can loosen it, but if you're married to should, I'm not dying on that hill. I also have
014a question. What is the guidance on student center topics? Because I feel like, there are some that could wiggle there, so what, how would we define students centered topics? so, you know, all of these terms are, I think there are some interpretations of this one. This one I think is pretty good. DR. Hepburn has been working under this procedure for a year. Have you had a hard time identifying topics? no not from my point. okay, that clears tup okay, MS. Rupert on DR. Zeman's. yes, thank you. Through the chair, DR. Hepburn, will this tie your hands at all, are you okay with that? no, I'm okay, it has not tied our hands all year. We've been pretty strategic that ensuring that 50 percent more of the workshop agenda is about academics or students. okay, I'm
015good, thank you. okay, so everybody is good with that? Okay, DR. Zeman, anything else? I can talk more but I'm going to be quiet. well thank you. DR. Cervera. MR. Cervera. I differ my time to the gentleman from west. I'll take doctor, that sounds good, my south american clients call me doctor, I never correct them. I'm going to try to get to the point. First and for most, if we look at section 7, subsection e in the public participation category. There is some language in here, which I think is problematic and needs to be removed and I'm going to explain why. there is an entire subsection here which gives the chair the ability to quote interrupt, notify and warn a speaker at such time if the speaker's comment fall into such categories, if the comment
016are obscene, personally directed or abusive, the chair MAY interpret, notify or warn the speakers about the comments. These, these categories of comments, are nearly identical to some policy language that exist inside broward school district in which a group of mothers filed a lawsuit and successfully per void at the 11th circuit court. The appellant court issued why putting restrictions on these categories of speech has a chilling affect on the first amendment. So that being said, I know I can't make a formal motion but I would ask that when this comes back for a formal vote, that we remove in section e, again this is section roman numeral 7, 4-e that we would remove the language starting with the chair, and ending with the permitted. can you printout the page. I apologize I should have given the
017page, page 11, subsection e and begins with the chair MAY interrupt, notify and warn the speaker. MS. Alhadeff. thank you. MS. Batista, can you speak to this in regards to what was passed legally and our language and if it's in line or out of line? I'll be happy to. So the language on page 11, I don't have any problem with it being deleted or stricken. The actual changes made pursuant to the case moms for liberty versus behrguard are found in another section of the policy and those I would hope would pass mustard if they're ever tested, that case said that because the policies contours were undefined and the enforcement was, you know, not clear that's the problem that had the court had and they found unconstitutional some of the sections of the policy. In our
018policy, the section that we, that you as a board changed is found on page 13 and it talks about this number 5, it says to maintain order and ensure that each meet ising accessible and appropriate for its intended audience including students from k-12 they MAY not use any form of pro familiarity and engage in inappropriate behavior and defines what abusive comments and threats, so it makes it more specific and compliant with moms for liberty. So I don't have any issue with the paragraph h identified byby MR. Cerva thatat ite stricken. advertising to delete that, so it's consistent with? with the rest of the policy. okay, thank you. okay, anyone else on MR. Cervera's suggestion? MS. Leonardi? um, I guess I'm wondering why this section is in there if our counsel would say that we should
019remove it in the first place? MS. Batista? it seems like it was a left over from the initial form that it was in. and when the corrected language was placed, you know, later on in the policy, was not removed. okay and I wanted to be, I would really like to be clear about what, you know, the first amendment rights of people who come here to speak. So, if somebody wants to come here and speak to issues that are beyond the subject matter of an agenda item are they allowed to do that? they're allowed to do that during the public hearing section, but they still have to be items that are related to the school board and education. so if somebody wanted come here and talk about what they ate for lunch yesterday, they cannot do
020that? correct. okay. because we have a limited public forum that is dedicated to educational issues so they couldn't come and talk about the war in iran, or whatever other things. okay, so why would we, maybe I'm not just understanding this, why would we get the rid of the chair MAY warn or notify the comments have gone beyond the subject matter. I'm not asking, the operative language that I have concerns with, if you look in e subsection 3, are obscene personally directed and abusive, that's the exact language that you find in the behrvard. are we just strike subsection 3 or down to permitted? I believe it's just, section 3. I guess, hold on, let's back up for a second. the way I heard it. Was the chair, you want today get rid of the chair MAY
021interpret from there all the way to permitted. correct and I think perhaps gra mmatically, the stuff about going beyond the subject matter on agenda items, if I heard MS. Batista is in the other parts of the rule of the policy. So, yonds if we want to realign those, but my concern where I think we will get in trouble because of what the case law says, if we leave language the chair MAY notify the speakers on comment and get into subsection 3, the way that is written without any further context, the case law will tell us, is, violating the first amendment and that's where the bervard school district got in trouble for having language in there. I don't want to say, that we copied it but we have similar language to what was bound in the
022bervard case. That needs to be excluded because of the spirit of going off the subject or addressing matters that are not business of the school board. We don't have an issue with tha. I have an issue with bare blanket thing about obscene and no further context to that, knowing what the 11th court of appeals has already ruled over a year ago in a case that was very similar to what we're dealing with. okay. if I MAY, MS. Leonardi. So that language, basically, you know that whole entire paragraph is already found on page 13, as I was stating before. And so, that's the reason I don't have an issue with being stricken from that section of the policy. okay. I just, from a broader sense, next time a policy like this comes forward, I hope that
023we can check it for legal sufficiency and make sure that there is not left over things from previous editrations, I just want to be clear, are people per their first amendment right allowed to come here and say, obscene things? MS. Batista. so the way that the policy reads, the answer would be no. It's just that, it's not that necessarily that you know, that paragraph is already explained in a, in a more you know, fully in on page 13, and on page 13 already states that, you know, if they engage in disorderly behavior, make abusive comments, or otherwise depicket or describe misconduct and then it has a definition as to what that means. So; so the answer would be no, they're not allowed to make obscene comments either. But that's found elsewhere in the policy and
024there is no reason for it to be repeated in two different places. okay, so on page, so to this point, cause I just want to be very clear. So per page 13 and I don't object to eliminating that piece on page 11 but I want to be clear what we outlined here is legally sufficient. So, the piece on page 13 section 5 subsection a and b, so people cannot come here and this is, is supported by law, that abusive, people come here and make abusive comments as defined in this policy, is that correct? MS. Batista. so that is our best draft of what we believe would be compliant with the case. This test has never been test inside court. We hope it would never be. But we believe the way it is written it would
025pass legal sufficiency. because, I would like to be transparent and clear somebody can come here and say abusive things about staff, or other members of the public or whatever, I just want to be clear that they're able to do that, and if that's not enough, that's wonderful. I don't want us to be of us of violating somebody's first amendment right. I do hope that people would come here and have dequorum but we know that that MAY not be the case as our history would suggest. So I just want us to be clear and transparent on what is allowed and not allowed and I want our policy to be compliant with law. ?Fm MS. Bulman, do you still have something to MR. Cervera's suggestion. no, I've had time to review it and I think it's good.
026MS. Alhadeff. I have a question regarding somebody coming and reading a book that has pornography in it. I thought if they, if they couldn't read that book, the book had automatically be pulled from the school, if the chair prevented the person from reading the book. How does that work with this? so, one thing doesn't really take away from the other, in the sense that you know, the chair would be within her right to her right, to to have the speaker and have the book pulled, you know, ultimately, the book would have to go through the process and then if, if, you know, if the committee states that the literary basis of the book is age appropriate for that particular group of students, then it would remain in the library. But pornography as a whole is
027not protected in the law. you changed your mind. so MS. Alhadeff's point this is if you just started reading. Now if you're editizing, then that would be permitted. Because you're getting into different territory. is that correct. my fault, I was remissed, this is rule development and we didn't have somebody who made comment sxz had some questions and staff did not address them, so when we come back from the hearing, we will go back to that and then back to board comment. So my fault for skipping over that part. Is anybody okay with the changes that MR. Cervera suggested? Anybody opposed to it? that sounds good. I'm not opposed. perfect. We're going to recess the workshop to get ready. I have one, can I have 60 seconds. you have less than that. okay. On, section 8
028dequorum, subsection 4, personal accuse tory comments made against individual board memebers superintendent or staff are prohibited as you know related to board business. My question, MADAM Chair, focuses on the personal accusetory comments, and how that plays in your first amendment rights. My question is on the personal accuse tory comments beinger does this run a foul of 762.65 which is the anti florida law section of the florida statutes? MS. Batista? I would have to you know, read that section again. Because it's already in here, I would say, it doesn't, since it was by our office. But I would like an opportunity maybe while you break and go to the next item to look at the language again. and the reason I ask just for the record, slander and defamation, there is a decades and decades and
029decades of case law that tell that you those comment right side not okay in most situations. My comment is accuse tory comment I don't know if that is going to rise to the level of slander or libel. So I want to make sure that by having that category, just does not run a foul extension. okay, we will recess this board meeting and we will start