Special School Board Meeting - Oct 21, 2025

001testing testing one two three. thank you. To welcome to today's special school board meeting. We're happy to have you join us and we're thankful to your time and dedication to our school district. This special meeting is now called to order. Our primary focus is to create a safe and productive environment for all participants. While in the board room refrain from obstructing the exit doors. All attendees must occupy a seat with exception of media. Once the board room has reached its seating capacity, attendees will be directed to a designated overflow area. Upon activation of the fire alarm system, please exit the door in a orderly fashion and remain outside until authority that has jurisdiction has deemed the building safe to return. Thank you for your cooperation. All please rise for the "pledge of allegiance" to the

002flag of the united states of america. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation,nd GOD indivisible with liberty and justice for all. thank you you MAY be seated. As we prepare to begin our special school board meeting, wee reminded that our vision is 100 percent proficiency for all of our students. We will continue educating all students to reach their highest potential. Our theme this year is believe empower achieve, one broward. today's special school board meeting will operate in accordance with school board policy 1020 and the board will review the items as advise asked presented by the superintendent. The superintendent release aid revised agenda with certain changes on this meeting and published it on the school website. Pursuant to 120.125 that good

003cause exist for such changes and accepts the revised agenda. MAY I have a motion and a second to close the agenda. so moved. second. moved by DR. Zeman, seconded by MS. Rupert. All in favor of closing the agenda say aye. Any opposed say no. The agenda is now closed. MAY I have a motion and a second on item number 1, driver safety education program agreement with broward county. so moved. moved by DR. Zeman, seconded by MS. Thompson. Are ththe e any pupubl comments? no o ma'a boararmemember commen?? I'll just say to MS. Batista and the general counsel team, I know it was a couple of years to get in across the finish line and we're grateful for the hard work and dedication especially what you did MS. Jacque adams, I know we had a few

004calls about it. We're happy to be voting on it today. Thank you. All those in favor of approving item number 1 say aye. aye. any opposed say no. The item pasz unanimously. MAY I have a motion and a second on item number 2. so moved. second. moved by DR. Zeman, seconded by MS. Rupert. Is there any public comment on the item? month ma'am. okay, board member discussion? Well actually I think we have before we go to board member discussion, we have a presentation by staff. So DR. Lozano? good morning, susan rockman executive director talent management. What we're here today is walking through the attachment and documents to help you guide you on your general counsel search. So the first item of business my suggestion is to look at the job description and make a determination

005whether or not you wish to make any changes to it or proceed with it as it is already been approved. okay, do I have any board members that would like to go first about the job description any changes you have? And suggestion for that? Ms.Ly leonardi. I have had a question about the florida bar piece. And my question I guess is for legal. Would there be anything preventing us from not limiting it to somebody having the florida bar with the agreement or requirement that they would become a member of the florida bar within, you know, six months or a year of being hired? I just don't know. There are in other settings that's allowed, I just don't know if that's in our setting, as a government agency that would be allowed and our purpose would

006be to expand the pool of people we're looking for? MS. Batista? yes, hi, good morning. We've had issued before and that is not allowed for the school board. okay, thank you. okay, and then I'm curious about my colleague's position on the minimum requirement. For, so, minimum qualifications, the third bullet point experience with education and/or school law. In the vain of trying to widen the pool of people, we're looking at replacing that with government and policy. You know, I understand the importance of having education and school law experience. I also understand that a lot of what our general counsel currently advises us on includes more of a like a government and policy. So I would be curious to know where my colleagues are on that. Thank you. DR. Zeman. can I differ to maybe attorneys that

007serve on the school board on that last comment. Would it be worth to have a conversation around that subject, or do you just want to go around the table? we can do it anyway, you would like. MS. Batista, do you have any inside to kick us off on that debate? well that's an interesting question. I mean, needless to say, you know, the more, the attorney is prepared with knowledge relevant to k-12 and educational law, the better they're going to be able to you noi, the more nimble they're going to be about responding to questions and responding to whatever changes in the law, and other things that MAY be happening negligent occasion which they do constantly. You know, is it impossible to just have like a, you know, basically be a good lawyer that can think

008on their feet? And can race through a problem and learn the law related to school law? It of course, that can happen. okay, anybody on the point, MS. Leonardi brought up? MS. Bulman? so, thanks chair. MS. Batista. Can you explain the difference between education law and school law? For everybody so -- because there is a distinction? sure. So school law would be k-12 strictly, you know, some information or experience related to k-12. Education law, talks about all the different areas that incompass what education law is, which is very broad just like any large corporation, we do construction law, we do education, labor and employment. We do first amendment, I mean which is something unique but we do in addition to that which will be more of the k-12 arena is the ese concept of, you

009know, special education, that's experience that you would only have if you have done k-12 practice, you know and legal practice in k-12. Does that answer your question? it's a broader scope when you're saying, education law versus school law, you can come with that a broader. right t incompasses employment, everything. do we have people and I appreciate that you you guys put this together, in the currently employed that have, I mean just based on the report that you gave, we have people that have pretty extensive experience with ese and specific school law? Already in the school law department. they are currently in the current employment department. She is relocating at the end of this year, so we have jeseli lamay who just started with us, she has approximately three months experience but she is picking up

010quickly and she is doing really well. So that would be the person that would be doing that work. Uh-huh. so we have some in-house knowledge of that specific topic? yes. is that just MS. Leonardi's point? yes, we're just just talking about MS. Leonardi's point of, well, two parts I guess, one about the having florida law. well no. yeah, it's about whether we want to keep in there about education or school law. MS. Alhadeff. so I like in the back up material how chicago did it. They wrote a minimum of 7 years of progressive managerial experience and law firms, corporate law offices, education institutions government or public agencies nonprofit or related organizations. I think that really opens up the pool and obviously, if they have educational experience in law, then, it's going to give them an

011edge within the process. But I like to, broaden the scope, I think it will bring us have more options for us, you know, and it could be a goal of them to in their time here, possibly go for the educational law certification through the state as a goal. did you want to make a motion? I think we're still in discussion. MS. Bulman. I have that highway, you like the fair facts. First of all, I appreciate that you added that was very helpful, because I have a broad scope and to go outside of the state as well. Thank you. I think the knowledge of litigation which I think is really important both for man jeerial and just to did -- managerial. If you have litigation experience, you can go forward. If you don't have managerial experience,

012it's going to be harder, basically impossible, and we don't need anyone learning on the job for that. in addition to our candidate should definitely have litigation experience as MS. Batista does. I'd like to make a motion. MS. Alhadeff. I move to add to minimum qualifications of managerial experience in law firms, corporate law offices, government or institution or public agencies nonprofit organizations or related organizations. second. would you want to strike the other one? to replace the other? Bullet. well there is two bullets. would you like to have that to preferred or strike it altogether? the experience with education and our school law, do you want to get rid of that altogether or move it down to preferred? I'm open to what my colleagues would like to do. okay, let's finish the first motion. is it replication

013of the chicago word for word? yes. okay, and your motion was silence so far. yeah, do it separate. thank you, I like this a lot. MS. Leonardi seconded the motion. So we're discussing it. DR. Holness. okay. I'm waiting for the school law. So I don't have any comments. okay. I let's see here. Anybody else on the motion? I just want to be clear, what we're voting is the chicago language but 7 years of practice not 15, that's the only difference? I'm sorry? it's the exact same language in the chicago one, the last bullet or the last sentence. so the last sentence not the first one. okay, then I have a comment. I thought we were doing above there where it says 15 and one or more large law firm university nonprofit, litigation, admin, law, contracts,

014negotiation real estate, that whole list. When you said earlier that you like what it says in chicago I thought the clause before that is the one that you were talking about. The one at the bottom, I'm sorry, and that would replace the minimum of 10 years of progressive bullet, correct? -- correct. perfect, thank you. okay, I have a comment. So in the one, the bullet that we're looking at it's really just talking about the, the progressive responsibility of work, it isn't directly related to being licensed so that's what we're focusing on right now. Correct? So everybody clear, so it's the last bullet in the chicago or the last sentence in chicago, and it's to replace only about progressively more responsible work in rilted and our says in related fields of the title position, this spells

015it out more, basically. okay. All those in favor of the motion say aye. aye. any opposed say no. That motion carries. Okay, MS. Bulman. so to it poach and we're very happy to have the work done by the other county. Other school difpts. I also like the language in the fairfax which provides ten years in practice with litigation, expertise and one or more in the following areas, constitutional, student rights, civil rights, student rights, contractor to our law. so the would you like to make a motion? woiz like to make a motion to add that as well. So, I think. do you want to replace something? yeah, maybe we would replace experience with education and/or school law and put, in there. okay, do you want to have the ten years? yes. I want to offer a

016friendly amendment, do you want to add school in that? They just have education law. yeah, I mean. to your motion. We're replacing school or education in the third bullet. see the thing is, in one or more of the areas, I don't think school law is going to get the job done for us, the broad scope of the candidate, like what they need to understand. That might be easier. and to my follow, school is a sub set of education law? Terrific, thank you, I love the motion. second. thank you. DR. Holness. thank you, MADAM Chair. So, if we're going to adopt the fairfax language, I'd like to get MS. Batista's input because it says in one or more of the following areas. So we could, hire somebody in one area and has no experience in the

017others. I just want to make sure that we're actually wordings everything the right way so we can get the most competent person at the same time, broadening the pool of applicants. So if MS. Batista weighs in. So if we get a candidate in one of the following, is there any parts of this that is relevant as a minimum qualification that is you would say would be mandatory to have? Or essential to have? MS. Batista? essential to have? Well student rights and education, students rights. I would say students rights, per ba, ese and contract review are the areas that we have the most val -- volume in our office. So, of course if you're going to be looking at the current needs of the district, which by the way, they have fluctuated throughout, you know, three

018decades that I've been here. Right now it's more of a redefining and construction, related, real estate type of law. So, if you can say if you're saying in one or more of the areas. If the person should have some experience in two or more of the areas. okay, so, so MS. Batista, I hear you. But I also heard you say, that in based on the volume of work that you've done, in broward county, it would be areas such as ese contract review, furpa, those are essential. Those are not in here. So I'm trying to. well I think maybe under student rights or education, that would definitely capture that. okay, so then, if we could end up hiring someone in two of the following areas that excludes students rights and education. So I'm trying to ascertain,

019what exactly is absolutely needed that we know for sure we're including in the job description based upon your experience and your suggestion. So the more would be a very general term that could basically include any two of the following without necessarily including the two that you consider essential. So do you consider student rights and education essential? Would those cover your prior comment about ese and furpa contract review? I do. However, if you're, your aim is to open up the pool, if you're going to then mandate that they have student rights and education experience, then kind of you're going back to nair owing the pool. here's my subsequent question. if these are essential, could we include in the minimum requirement that these are, if they don't have these, that there is a time line to which

020they acquire that knowledge through some kind of a, I don't know, course or whatever is required in that area? At least some basic knowledge of it? Right, because if they come in without that knowledge at all, and they don't have any real incentive to go get that knowledge because we didn't state it here, then that could impact the level to which you're able to do this job? well if you hire somebody that doesn't have a particulul area ofof expertrte d d has s nono intentntioor desire to make, to get the train anding make themselves knowledgeable in that yai, I say you hired the wrong person. right, but instead of waiting for them to make that option, can we do it? we add it to their contract. add it to their contract? So, okay. My last

021question. I just think it's essential that we don't rely on a person to say we're going to do this in some form or way we make sure that they do it. And the other question that I have MS. Batista, is there any added information that you think relevant either in the preferred qualification or minimum qualification that we somehow did not include? MS. Batista? thank you, MADAM Chair. No I think that contains all the necessary areas. okay, so I'll have, I think I would want more comments on adding those essential requirements to the contract how that works and so on. MR. Cervera. thank you, chair. And obviously I have quite a few comments but I want to focus on the motion that is pending before us right now. First and for most, I understand this this

022language about the ten-year experience and I understand its intent. However the real world application can have some problem. This basically says you have to have ten years experience in one or more and then it list a laundry of list that I think are important and any general counsel representing a school board should have. However, the way that this is written as is, is again one or more. To presumably if somebody comes in, like myself, I would obviously not run but who has more than ten years experience in real estate law, both in litigation. I would check that box. I don't think I'm eligible to believe the broward school board counsel. You also have contractor port law. There is a very very very large contingent of members of the florida bar who can say that they

023have ten years in contract law and the same thing with tort law. And that does not mean I want john morgan to be the general counsel of school board despite his experience in tort law. so I understand the point of this, of this category here but I think when you're limiting to one or more to check a box, to see if somebody is qualified. I think it has to be a little tighter. I think it has to be inclusive of some of these areas that to me are a must, right? Local government experience. Education law, I mean I don't realistically see how we bring somebody into this post who does not have experience in education law. Period, full stop, you cannot do it. Same thing with, same thing with the civil rights stuff. And the

024constitutional stuff. Having a firm grasp on let's say like the first amendment I think is extremely important for a general counsel position. And if you don't have that experience, I don't think you should be considered. So I would, I want to obviously give my colleagues the opportunity to continue with this conversation which I think is an important in this area. But certainly having the language from virginia that says one or more, I don't think that is enough. One can say, I'm a ten-year practioner in real estate law, I checked that box. Right, it's not enough. Chair, MAY I ask a question of MS. Batista. sure. is there a mechanism in general counsel would be appointed in the event that we have not selected the full-time information on the last day of MS. Batista's employment with

025the district? we're going to discuss that later on in the discussion. and the reason I ask that is because it's an important. I was not part of this board when the last decision was made on who the general counsel was going to be. And talk to go some people, it's my understanding that we had some difficulty with getting people to fill the minimum qualifications which I get. However, and I'm not suggesting by any stretch of the imagination that we did not make the right decision by hiring MS. Batista, I think that was a good one. But I don't want this attitude we've got to have these lose qualification to see attract this giant applicant pool because we know when MS. Batista is leaving and we need that filled. We're the sixth largest school district in

026the entire country unless something has changed. I want the best and the brightest and I want a person who is going to come in and serve this district well. If that search takes a little while, I'm okay with that, as long as we're properly protected and knowing that we've got somebody within in-house that can step up into an interim role, just like when a coach leaves, which the dolphins are in need of a interim head coach right now, we need an interim coach to step in so. If this process, takes two or four or six months, I want to make sure that we're getting the best person for this job and we're not feeling rushed. We've got to make this decision. We've got to let this lucy goosy standards. I don't want that. I want

027excellence, I want perfection, I want the best and the brightest and I don't want to feel rushed to making a decision because there is a mechanism which is why I asked the question. MS. Alhadeff. I'm good. MR. Zeman. are we discussing this topic. we're still in the motion. I'm start to go recognize the play between the qualification and other parts of the job description and the process that we go through when we get and I know the process is going to come up subsequent to this. But I would like to have as broad as a minimum as standard as we can. I think the people who don't have the experience, in student and education law would be ill advised to apply. But they could, you make a lot of and they want to have a

028second job in a school district and they're such an incredibly great lawyer that they become a candidate. I like this motion, I think it makes sense. And I think that, while, it does allow more people to allow to apply. The salary does not a law people to come back and do this and, I think we're going to be okay and I look forward to talking more once we settled on the job description, you know how we're going to do the process. And chair, when we're with this item, I do have a description recommendation when there is time. okay, MS. Bulman. thank you. So just based on what DR. Holness is questioning, I don't have a problem adding two or more of the division. And to speak MR. Cervera, everybody wants to best person here, but

029I'm pretty confident that john morgan is going to leave their job to come here. So when you look at who is going to a mrie, the purpose is that we do have people that we could not be capturing because it's so narrowly taylors and when we get the application, we'll decide if they have any business being here. Because managerial we MAY benefit from somebody that has a different background, because we do have a team that is already in-house as well that has the knowledge of various areas that we have. To the point na, MS. Batista made earlier too, we're focusing now based on redefining, I think we should add construction law to the laundry list of, areas of expertise because we're going to be dealing with construction and then obviously we have a lot of

030real estate issues as well. So, I would amend and MS. Batista, is tort law really an issue that like is that something that we, that you deal with it had? right, that currently, the tort law area is mostly handled by outside counsel through risk-management and not through my office. okay. So we might not need tort law? well I don't know if you don't need it, you need some knowledge. Usually when the district is sued and in handling, litigation on behalf of the district for 20 years, I know that they plaintiffs tend to put in, you know, like a federal cause of action and then state causes of action based on toteser, infliction of emotional distress, whatever. So you do need some tort law knowledge, but I couldn't say that's the primary at all. Yeah. okay.

031So I guess to my colleagues, do we want to narrow it to at least two of those? Areas? Or do you want to keep it at one? And I would like to add construction, I think that would be another area that would benefit from. And then, so I'll, I'm just amending my motion to add construction. and to change one to two. no I don't think, everybody shook their head on that. You want two? okay, we'll add two. two or more. And then contract, tort or construction. and this will allow us to get more applications and then we can, you know, if 90 percent don't qualify and they don't have any business being there, we won't move forward. okay, MS. Leonardi. Do you second the changes? yes. so we're still on the motion. Just tweaked a

032little bit. MS. Leonardi. thank you. I support the motion, I think everybody up here wants to hire the best candidate, none of us are saying, we want a mediocre counsel, part of that is hiring an excellent general counsel. I think it's important maybe for those of us who are not here the last time we did the general counsel search to go back and review the documents and the meetings from when we did do a general counsel search back in the summer of 2021. We really limited ourselves in the candidates that we have options with because of a very narrow job description. The job description has changed a little bit but, having been through that process before, I think it's really important that we give ourselves, a broad pool of candidates. I think we are all

033intelligent enough and we all have the values to say, you know, this person certainly qualifies but maybe not best for the district that's how this process works. I support the motion. I really come from having done this before and having been limited with I think we got to the point where we only had two options and one person walked away from us because of a contract issue. I think being able to look at every one who qualifies, who might bring something unique to the position is really really important. so that's where I'm operating from. And then are we discussing the job description? Or the timeline right now? just on the job description. okay, thank you. we're going to do this in pieces. this is minimum qualification. yes. so I will, I like the motion and

034all I'll reread it again just to make sure we're all on the same line. But I, to MR. Cervera's point and MS. Leonardi's point, we do want to cast a wider net of people. But when we get there, I would rather move where it experience with education and school law move it down to preferred qualifications. So I'll make that motion, I don't mind broadening the minimum qualifications but I think in preferred to MR. Cervera seize -- cervera's point. But to broaden the net, I don't mind adding all of those other pieces to it. So before I move on, so MS. Rupert has what we're saying and out loud to every one. The motion is, to add to minimum qualifications and experience, ten years of experience in public or private practice with litigation expertise in two

035or more of the following areas. The constitution student rights, education, employment, civil rights, real estate, local government, procurement, contracts, tort work or construction. Construction law. so that is the amended motion. and chair, just to be clear, is it to replace the ten years, at least for now, experience with education or school law? okay so the whole motion is that to replace the third bullet under minimum clause? thank you, ma'am. can we just keep it there and add this and then make your motion on that? no, we can't, because it's defining the experience in a different way. We can amend the motion one more time and add to the motion to move what is there to experience, to mack this easier maybe. I think MS. Alhadeff's concern is if we remove, the motion would within be

036to remove it because we just removed it. So if we add it to the motion that we're going to put, your motion there and move experience to preferred, I think that would solve, that would do it all? can I talk? go ahead. I don't agree with that. I think that the experience with education or school law, we're seeing experience we're not saying to be certified to educational law, that is paramount in this, as a minimum qualification. Yeah. It needs to stay there, in minimum qualifications. We're not saying to be certified which we have in the past which then it restricted because there is only 65 people in the state that is certified in educational law, we're just saying experienced. okay, go ahead, MS. Bulman. it says, education, so that's education law. So what are we?

037I'm a little confused. Education law is in there, I guess we can add school law in this. I'm just confused about what we're doing. MS. Bulman's motion is to replace the experience with education and/or school law with the sentence that I just read. yeah. that's her motion. and if you don't want to do that, you can vote against the motion. correct. Okay. MS. -- DR. Holness. thank you, MADAM Chair. So I think where my thought is, it's important that we don't water this down. I know that, I think there is a fine balance in getting a flood gate of candidates and a limited number of candidates and I'm not sure which one we're achieving here today. So I know that, board member cervera mentioned, in interim and so, so, MS. Batista, do we have anyone

038in-house capable of serving as an interim should we not be able. DR. Holness, we're going to talk about in a later spot, so I don't think it's appropriate to have that discussion right now. It has nothing to do with the job description whether somebody can serve as an interim. the reason I'm asking is because my vote on this is also contingent on that. I don't want us to water this down where we have a flood gate of candidates that don't immediate the qualification where we can entertain the idea if we know we have somebody qualified as an interim and I can make a better decision as to what I understand as opposed getting a flood gate of candidates. My discussion is is on I vote. I understand but we're going to have an discussion. I'm

039not asking if we're going go out or not, I'm simply asking. I know, but it clouds the second discussion. by you objecting me, I will not be able to make an informed decision on what we're talking about. I just, I personally. I get it, but that information is relevant. it shouldn't be. because I don't want to have a flood gate of candidates come in, as opposed to a limited number of candidates if I know that we don't have anyone in-house who can take the roll. I'm going to let DR. Lozano answer your question. my staff has done some research and it looks like we do have an internal candidate that is going to step into the interim role at this time if needed. that is my question, MADAM Chair, thank you. MS. Bulman. so, I

040think, you know, on this language, again, it does cover, I think the concern is covered in this. Once we look at, this is a very job description. So it has, I think it takes checks all the boxes that we need. And then we'll review the resume and decide ifif memedy qualifies s oror has s e e peperice at w wwant. Sosowe're getting todetailed atat this point and in terms of a flood gate of applicants, sure we might be getting that, but again, and I think, you know, I don't see a lot of people leaving a lucrative private practice to come take this job unless they're in a certain place in their career. I don't think there is going to be like 5 million applicants for this. I think this is going to be a limited

041and then we're going to have a limited number of people that we're going to actually talk to. Somebody with construction law, might apply that really doesn't have knowledge on the rest of this and not really going to be somebody that we're going to want to necessarily interview. That is going to be up to us, we just need a broad description so we can capture anyone that MAY be in those categories. The concern with the education, we've got student rights, civil rights, education, I think that captures the different areas that would apply to school and education, education law is in there specifically and then the school law applies to a lot of those other things, so. MS. Alhadeff? do we have to put school law in there to add that to the list? MS. Batista said

042it was incorporated in education. okay, and then just being picky, do we have to write law after all of those constitutional law, education law? MS. Batista. it seems that the intent was that by having the word law at the end of the last destination, that would apply to each and every one one. It could be constitutional law, education law, but just put iting at the very end, in this case, it sets tort law, you can say tort law and/or, you know, construction law. That would apply the law would apply to all the others. great. but would it make it stronger putting in law? I'm pretty sure they understand that this is about the law. okay. which one? it's a lawyer that we're looking for. yep. okay. So just to be clear, cause for the minutes

043that's what we're doing, it would say ten years of experience and private practice with litigation expertise in two or more of the areas, constitution student rights, employment, civil rights, real estate, local government, procurement contract, tort or construction law? Okay. All those in favor of the motion. chair, chair, I apologize, I just caught this and I want to make sure that we're crossing all our Ts and dotting all our Is, MS. Batista, you can only identify yourself as an expertise or claim you have expertise if you're board certified, isn't that how that works? So we're saying litigation, expertise, is that implicit that the candidate would have to be board certified in one of those ten or so areas that we're listing off? two. excuse me, two or more, should be all ten but I'll settle for

044two. I don't want to exclude anybody who is reading too deeply when it says. Remember, this is coming from virginia. So I don't know what their laws are. First of all I want clarification, am I remembering that correctly you cannot have expertise unless you're board certified? yes, in florida you have to say that you have a specialty or that you're, you have expertise would be that you have a certification, you're board certified in that area. So perhaps, the better way to describe it there would be litigation experience. yeah, that's how it has to be. MS. Bulman, do you want to amend your? good catch, MR. Cervera. I try. I appreciate that. I think the counsel's recommendation is experience. litigation experience instead of expertise. demonstrated. Should we have it be a little stronger? I think you

045can just that on the other. I think that sounds great, thank you. MS. Leonardi? is there any objection to that? I don't think so. we have to ask. I want to make sure that we're still including the third bullet with experience in education with school law. we'll get to that. She is adding to that. We have not gotten to the third bullet. okay. Seems like it would. I mean, I'm okay with it as far as if it's in in motion. If this accompanies the education and experience law in this motion? yes. MS. Batista. yes. okay, then we can remove it. okay. we're just crossing out expertise. they're asking about two different things. So MS. Rupert was bringing up the third bullet, she wants to make sure experience with education and our school law is not

046removed and it's, you're just expanding that third bullet to include all the other things, so it's not being removed, it's being expanded. It's incorporated in the motion that she is making. thank you. can you repeat the motion madam chair. one more time, the motion is to expand the third bullet instead of just saying experience with education or school law. It could say ten years in experience in public or private practice in two or more of the following areas. Constitution, education, employment, civil rights, contract, tort, or construction law. all right, chair. Now it's, I think we've created a little bit of a problem. You don't necessarily have to ten years of litigation experience. You need to have experience, period. Legal experience. Sometimes that ends up in litigation. Sometimes it's just reviewing a contract. Sometimes it's understanding

047the first amendment and explaining it to school board memebers. Why are we starting with litigation experience in any two of these fields? No. I just heard what the chair read. it says ten years in experience in public or private practice, it does not say you have to have ten years of litigation, it says within those ten years. I passed my a p english school in high school and that's a danging metaphor. With litigation experience, in one or two of more of these areas, it could be read that you have litigation experience in two of those areas. So we just have to be clear with our grammar so people understand what we're looking for. Right, are we counting ten years of litigation in these fields of law. that's not what it says. let me read it

048again. Litigation experience in two or more of the following areas. it says within your ten years of experience in public or private practice you have to have some litigation. If you want to put some. I'm not reading it, the way you are. okay. I drop my gra marrian hat. MR. Lozano? Do you think it needs to be word smithed? I see it the way, general counsel batista sees it, that is within. So I think we're okay with that language. do you think we're okay, MS. Batista. yes. rip it, thank you. okay, we're good. MS. Rupert. okay. I just want to really want to make sure here that we're deciding if, there is two years experience in education law that because it's not just a bullet, it can be an either or. Where it used to

049be bullet, number 3, which is how I really like it. And I understand that there is in this list of two or more successful blah blah blahs, and it's in there. But I think, explain to me. does one have to be education law. I'm going to make a motion later to add it to preferred, that is experience. I mean education. I personally. okay, you can vote no on the motion. okay, I'll plan on that. I'd like to call the question. all those in favor of calling the question. say aye. aye. any opposed say no. no. motion carries, I think there is only two noes. DR. Zeman, for the minutes. MS. Leonardi. all those in favor of the motion say aye. aye. all those opposed say no. no. want to do roll call. roll call school

050board memebers alhadeff. yes. bulman. yes. cervera. yes. hixon. yes. holness. no. leonardi. yes. rupert. Thompson. yes. zeman. yes. 7-2, passes. okay, alrighty. So we're done with na motion, I had DR. Zeman. thank you so much, there is a point in our job description 5th bullet where we talk about the general counsel serving as our parliamentarian, I was on the board whether we added this and when we went through some training. Did you get a certified as a parliamentarian. I am a member of the parliamentarian so I'm not registered a parliamentarian yet. but you completed. Just a reminder, we asked you to take a certain amount of parliamentarian training so you can help us. correct, and I took a test. congratulations, I'm sure you did very well. As always. 97. do you want to share the

051results? wow, thank you for educating the public on your outstanding test results. I would like chair to find out about in the research that our staff did on this job description, did we find other school districts in this research that were done to ask very settle judgments about law and advising the school board and superintendent on parliamentarian procedure. Did anybody else have this? DR. Hepburn? DR. Lozano? we would have to do a follow-up on information. I will just tell you, I find it a challenge. I think this board has gotten better on this parliamentarian but it's difficult to be both of those things, and the parliamentarian does not carry the same level, the general counsel is going to tell you how to stay out of jail and how to not be sued, making motions and

052substitute motions that are good for boards to pay attention to. My preference would be to drop that. If we choose not to drop it, chair, then I would add something in the minimum qualifications or I would ask our staff if this makes sense, we ask our general counsel to said, that you had to be a minimum of parliamentarian, loosely described by MS. Batista. But it seems that we should have that in preferred qualification and then if we hire somebody we can ask them to get it in a year or so and leave it in or my preference would be to take out the 5th bullet and allocate that responsibility to somebody else rather than to our general counsel. MS. Rupert? miami-dade does. does? for the parliamentary procedure. brilliant, thank you so much. you asked. so

053they double hat their general counsel. So let me start with that, then, if you don't mind, MS. Rupert. My motion is to read what miami-dade's says. If you can read that knowledge of parliamentary procedure, certification preferred. and that is under minimum or preferred in miami-dade? well it says certification preferred? I'm sorry, the indication is the knowledge of parliamentary is part of minimum and then certified and it's preferred. it's not split up as nicely as you would like it. I would like to make that motion that on the minimum that we say that they have, is, I'm sorry I don't have this miami-dade up if I can find it and that will save us time. second from the last one. thank you so much, so I make a knowledge that we add, knowledge, oops, knowledge of

054parliamentary procedures under minimum and certification as MS. Batista as a parliamentarian? Thank you. And then under preferred certification, as parliamentarian. second. that's the motion to add two bullets. second. thanks. okay. Any discussion? Any public comment on the motion? Board discussion, MS. Leonardi? yeah, I think that, again, this is not the direction that I think we should go in terms of narrowing these things, I think MS. Batista's kind of learning on the job and going through the process was fine. I think it is important that it is part of the essential performance responsibilities but I don't agree with adding this to the qualifications. Thank you. okay. I also agree, we're trying to widle it down, I believe that we put the requirement in MS. Batista's evaluation, that was part of the objectives to participate in the

055parliamentary. So although, it's part of what we would expect for their performance, I don't want to put it in the minimum. I don't mind put iting in preferred but I don't want to put it in minimum. MS. Alhadeff. so I would just when, I'm just thinking the added part to this is when somebody becomes chair, that we require them to do some type of training, whether it's with robert's school of order or parliamentarian. I think there is two parts, and even the chair too so they're all learning. I don't know that is part of this, but that should be brought up with this with the chair and the vice chair's responsibility. It's not just all on general counsel it's the chair and vice chair too. anybody else? DR. Holness? DR. Zeman, I would be supportive

056of the motion if it is placed on the preferred. I am concerned about that aspect under minimum. So if you want to modify, then I'll be supportive, if not, then, I think we're going to narrow too much. MS. Batista? I'm not going to opine whether it should be in which section or what. but I just wanted to add that because we are considered the board is considered a small group or small body, such as a committee and what not, robert's rule says that robert, the parliamentary procedures are applied more loosely than in large assemblies. So I just wanted to, you know, that's one of the reasons that I believe that it wasn't part of the job description in the beginning, is because they had, the general counsel always had some knowledge of parliamentary procedure, but

057it wasn't as, I'm going to say regimented. terrific. so MADAM Chair, my understanding of the motion is that the person has some knowledge or experience. But not necessarily in terms of the applicability of robert's rules. So if they want to clarify what is intended. yes, if there is no objection, want to do the experience as preferred not minimum so that the motion amended, if there is no objection would be that in the preferred, knowledge of procedures. Let me explain, I'll stop there and then I'd like to talk about it, if there is no objection. I think MS. Rupert's seconded the motion. we do parliament procedure, loosely, general counsel. My point in doing this, there is lawyers who spend their life in their office and they're brilliant lawyers and they read contracts and settle issues and

058write opinions about first amendment and toteser and things like that. And they never have left their office to actually work in a committee setting, they're not familiar with it. And I think that would make sense if we're going to make it a job condition that we at least have it in our preferred list. There are still, to MR. Cervera's point, there is still plenty of room for people to do but that would be a red flag as part of the hiring process. I love MS. Alhadeff's point about chairs and vice chairs, they have more to do with the conduct on this meeting than the lawyers does. Maybe we can remind ourselves to talk about that. Thank you very much, that's the amended motion. okay, all those in favor of the e tion sayayaye. aye.. Anany

059posesed sano.. Motion carries unanouslsl ok.. Next up is DR. Holness? Were you done DR. Zeman. I am thank you. DR. Holness. okay, so MADAM Chair, based on what we currently have in the job description, I want to make sure I understand clearly and maybe MS. Batista can help, is it possible we can have based upon what we've agreed upon so far, hire a candidate who could possibly not have ese, and furpa experience? MS. Batista. based on the motion we passed in the session including the motion by board member bulman with two or more of the following, is there a possibility that we could hire somebody without ese, furpa or contract review experience that would fit in the guideline requirement that's we have so far? And there is a reason why I'm asking this question. MADAM

060Chair? MS. Batista. so I'm going to answer it this way, I think there is a strong possibility that a candidate will qualify for the position without that type of experience. However, whether you hire somebody without that experience is up to you. got it. So based on what we have so far, somebody could qualify without this experience. So that is concerning to me. Broward county schools, we have 50, wm DR. Hepburn, broward county schools, how many ese students do we have? DR. Hepburn? go ahead, DR. Fulton? about 40,000. yes. so we have about 40,000 ese students and I've been visiting ese schools recently. I would like that in the preferred part of the job description that this is included as priority as part of the preferred experience. Now, it will not change the pool of applicants

061because it's in preferred, as a board, we'll decide if, if we have a candidate with these preferred experience, if that would be relevant to hiring such an individual. So I would like to make a motion just to ensure that we have somebody that we, that we would rather have ese experience, contract and furpa be preferred in the preferred section. I would like to make a motion that we include ese and burpa as a preferred requirement. any second? second for discussion. any public comment? Board member discussion on the motion? MS. Leonardi. do we have staff that specifically work on those issues in our legal department? MS. Batista? yes, we currently have three attorneys that do contract review. One attorney that specialized in ese and furpa issues. okay. I think that if we go down this road,

062we can add a million preferred things. I don't know that has a wise exercise. thank you. Anybody else? all those in favor of the motion say aye. aye. any opposed say no. no. Motion fails. Any other board? I have one thing, so I would also like to make a motion, so I move that we add experience with education and/or school law in the preferred qualifications and experience. Okay. Any public comment on the motion? Board discussion? DR. Zeman? I'm just curious. how this is going to read to an applicant because in the minimum, we say that as well. We say you have to have experience in education law. it could be one of the two. It doesn't have. let me just say it another way. I think it's immaterial policity in the job. If you're going

063to apply to be a general counsel in the school board, especially a large one like ours, it's immaterial policity. And I think we're very clear that we would like a broad net to capture lots of candidates and I think we will with the experience that we listed in the minimum. So I just don't think this is necessary. well thank you. MS. Leonardi. I'm curious to hear from our hr staff, what the role or impact of the preferred qualifications has in sorting through the applicant, and ranking them? DR. Lozano? the preferred requirement when we're doing a screening process, kind of gives people additional points in that area. So you have your minimum clause, gu through responsibilities and preferred, if those people have them, that would give them additional scoring points to score higher than others. okay,

064ultimately, though, it's up to the board. It doesn't we'd people out, correct? correct. It would not disqualify somebody from the position. okay, so if somebody in theory didn't meet any of the preferred qualifications, we can still theoretically select them as our general counsel. that's correct, as long as they met the minimum qualifications, that person can be considered. okay. How does it impact how the candidates are presented to the board. I know we're talking about process, but I'm just, wondering how that how these candidates will be presented to the board. right, we're going to discuss that when we talk about the role of the legal services committee, and I assume we hire the role. okay. MS. Alhadeff. I think why we're all sensitive to this, because in the past, in the past, it was we were

065actually asking them to be certified educational law certified. So we've come down from that, so I still think, I like adding as an additional bullet point, I think it ads that extra umf. I think it's obvious but words matter and this was important to us in the past to be certified, and we would love somebody to come in certified education. So I would like it here in the bullet points. MR. Cervera. thank you, chair. I just want some clarification from DR. Lozano on the minimum versus preferred. If in fact this experience with education in school law is removed from the minimum qualifications, category and put into the preferred category. Strike that, if it's left as it is now, and an applicant applies and they don't have experience in education or school law and if it's

066in the minimum qualificationers, is that within your internal procedures, does that automatically disqualified? Meaning we will not even see it? that's correct. okay, so if it's removed, and put into the preferred qualifications, presumably, if somebody does not have it, it's an extra check but it will not disqualify, correct? that's correct. so here's my problem with not having the education in school law. we actually out already, that was the motion that was passed. It's incorporated in the motion that MS. Bulman made. So it's not spelled out any longer as experience with education and/or school law, it is the ten years experience in public or private practice, blah blah blah. That's why I'm asking to move it to preferred. I want you to know it's not there now. my apologies, I must have misunderstood the motion. So

067as we sit right now, we have removed education school from minimum qualifications meaning if we get an applicant who does not have that qualification, they'll still go through the vetting process? as long as they have two or more? within the category of MS. Bulman's prior motion? Thank you for the clarification. MS. Bulman. I just, I want today clarify again, in the interest of not being redundant it's in the minimum qualifications and MS. Batista, sorry, go ahead. Can you explain again what education law is. It's, it incompasses a lot of different areas. So when we're saying educational law to add it again when we have it up here. Yeah. Education is like real estate, if there is a,? right, education law would incompass all the different areas of law that are part of practicing within the

068education. and runing the school district? So it's a variety, so the education that catch all broad field that incorporates a lot of different areas of law, which we already have in here. broader than squaol, though. all right. Thank you. okay. Okay, all those in favor of the motion say aye. aye. those opposed say no. no. roll call. MADAM Chair, can you repeat the motion. the motion was to add experience with education and/or school law into preferred qualifications and experience. Yes. in the previous motion, are any of those categories not incompasses educational law, like constitution, real estate? Because if somebody comes in with two, comes in with two of those experience area then it would not be educational law, that's why it's important to be in preferred. But is it? Any of those two categories not

069educational law? MS. Ba tuft a? I'm not sure that I understand the question, exactly. But I think what you're asking is is it possible for a candidate to qualify and not have, I guess, education some education or school law experience. correct. right, I think that would be possible. right. because you would have done procurement and contract law for a private entity and never have done it related to an educational entity. that's why this is a good motion because you add it to preferred and then, at least it would be there and you're not limiting your scope of candidates? okay. We'll try that again. Roll call? roll call on the motion, school board member bulman. no. cervera? hixon. yes. holness. yes. leonardi. no. rupert. thompson. yes. zeman. no. Alhadeff. yes. it passed 6-3. thank you. Anybody

070else have anything? Okay. MS. Bulman. just for clarification, so MS. Alhadeff's motion originally that we passed, what did that replace in minimum qualification, because there seems. it replaced the second bullet where it said a minimum of ten years. it probably should also. there were two different things. One is about managerial experience and the other one is about what you're? no, no, I'm not talking about that passed motion. Bullet number 2. Bullet number 4 seemed to address -- I don't know if that her motion would replace both of those or just one? Because it's, it's a minimum of managerial experience and law firm, this is supervisor a group of attorneys, that's the same. do you have a motion? We're going to vote on the job description. ipg -- I think it's a little redundant. I guess

071I would move to that MS. Alhadeff's motion, the language that she put in there would replace the 2nd and 4th bullet? well to clarify, it says a minimum of 7 years of progressive responsible managerial experience in law firm. That's just responsible. managerial. right, managerial. The fourth bullet, supervising a graoufp legal, across areas. managerial I would say is the same. but one is across multiple subject areas one is that you're just a manager. It was enough, they were two separate bullets originally. All of MS. Alhadeff's motion do is reduce a number of years. this is not managerial, number 2, says that you have more responsible work experience you're not managing anything in that one. The managerial is number 4, supervising. do you have a motion? I would keep, I would keep number 2 the way it

072is and put MS. Alhadeff's? our motion was to change number 2 to what MS. Alhadeff did, number 2 does not exist anymore. So your motion can be to delete or strike but you cannot address. I cannot add the language back? I guess you could. I would move to strike number 4 because I think that's what MS. Alhadeff's motion is doing and then to add number 2, because that addressed the ten years, you have to have ten years of experience we already agreed to that. the motion you just made said you have to have ten years of experience, so your motion actually took care of that as well. okay. Then we have that stricken. I think that number 4 is redundant. okay, is there a second? MADAM Chair. Can I clarify the motion. I want to

073understand if the motion is to. strike number 4. and bring back bullet number 2? we're not bringing back number 2. second. and so number says experience legal issues across multiple subject areas. Any public comment? Board member comment? MS. Alhadeff? so I would not be for that motion cause it's two different things. We need to keep the, the experience supervising a team because the supervising is the day-to-day oversight and operations of the legal department. Where managing is on a strategic planning and coordination. thank you, any other board member comment? All those in favor of the motion say aye. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Did you change your mind? You made the motion. aye. all those oppose say no. no. I'm aye. so the motion fails 2-7. right, any other discussion on job

074description or can we vote on the amended job description? Since we're hour and a half in, people were afraid three hours were too long. we were hoping. all those in favor of item number 1, the job description for general counsel as amended say aye. "opposed say no. Motion passes unanimously. So the next thing we're going to talk about is if we're going to do an internal or external church. you can proceed DR. Lozano. thank you. all right, our next item is to determine whether or not you want to go with an outside recruiting firm head hunter or do we want to use our internal departments here. And my research, we've called a couple of lead hunters, recruiting firms about 8 to 10 of them and we had a couple of questions about coming to you

075with contingency versus their cost and such. So I can review that research, if you prefer, MADAM Chair? yeah, if you can briefly, I know you sent us a document maybe just refer to where it is in the document. I can. So you have three different time lines in your packet there. You have one titled on the left hand side, you'll see internal and external timeline and then the interim. Under the external timeline you'll see the costs 20 percent to 35 percent of the first year's salary. if we go with an external firm that does offer does a percentage, we MAY have to go through the procurement process because at this time, we don't know what the salary will be so it's difficult for me that that will be under 50,000 so we can go into

076a agreement with recruitment firm. We did find one, two companies that will do a flat rate under 50,000. So I feel, excuse me, I feel our external search firms are very limited on what will give us choices in order to meet a time line of trying toreplace somebody by the titi msms. Babatistleleavesespecial if we have if to go out through our procurement process. That are my thoughts on external. And then the internal. Do you want me to pause? go ahead. and then if we lose our in-house department, our only cost there would be if we wanted cast the net and do some paid marketing advising that would be our cost associated with that. Which would run approximately 5 to maybe 8,000, however, we have already started to reach out to candidates, it's a very specialized

077pool, where as typically if you use a head hunt her, you do use those for an executive type specialized position, however with this being contained, you have to have the florida bar, with it being education, we do have a networking out there with candidates that we can reach out to to help build our pool. so I do feel if we did our internal search we would be able to get somebody in place depending with your availability with additional meeting in place before, right before the end of DECEMBER first week in DECEMBER before MS. Batista's departure. thank you. DR. Zeman. thank you, very much, claire. I'm dying to know, I appreciate a lot of work went into helping us understanding. We happen to have somebody, I would be curious of MS. Batista's general guidance to us

078about the value of internal and versus external, and what we should know based on her 32 years of education about finding other ones. There is some preconceived there is one person that has lived in this experience. And I would be curious if she can educate us on how she feels the process is going to unfold here in the next few months. MS. Batista? well what I would expect is that, hr has already done an excellent job of put ing together a time line and process that they feel confident will yield applicants qualified applicants. To you know, to be able to have the add out and reach out through hr to this particular candidates that they have already located in the area of education law. I don't know if, you know, what other, we had a

079conversation last week, so we had some ideas that I already spoke about to hr. About potential places they could look. Not just, you know in within the necessarily the normal places which would be school districts, right? And so the process would be, you know, to have release an add for, I would say three weeks or somewhere around that time frame. And you know look at the pool of applicants and go through that process of qualifying the applicants and looking to see if they're qualified and interviewing. terrific. And would you feel, and again, this is asking somebody who has lived in this field for decades, would you feel like there is a tradeoff between speed and using an external process, it seems like, according to our team? And I know, how much you hate to give

080us your opinion but in this case, you're the subject expert in the room. How do you get that tradeoff? In terms of are we getting a lot of juice for the squeeze in putting out an incentive contract to try to find you relief? so if you really want the personal experience, I have been approached by recruiting firms in the past, right, to apply to other districts and you know, and you always feel special when somebody approaches you specifically, right. And I think that can be done through the internal hr department, they can reach out and make that phone call to specific candidates that they feel are uniquely qualified if they are, if they're able to do that, then I don't see there will be difference between an outside firm and hr department actually conducting it.

081sxl to the general counsel again, is there a meeting coming up in the next month of the of florida association of attorneys and will you be attending that meeting? yes. and during that meeting will you actively approach anybody that is qualified and make them aware of the opportunity that they have in broward? of course. and have you been able to talk to people on your staff to encourage them to look this and consider it as well. yes, absolutely. I don't know who is chair anymore, but whoever is chair, I'm done. thank you, MS. Leonardi. the chair is the chair. it's a title, not a person. in reaching out to search firms can you tell me the profile of the firms that we reached out to? Are they solely legal recruiting firms? Or do they do

082recruit ago cross the board with a legal specialty department? DR. Hepburn? DR. Lozano? hi, yes, they were a variety of different firms that specialize in legal, they specialize in education and government resources some private firms, so we had a variety of them that specialize in legal but also expanded our legal to talk to others as well. and did we contact these firms directly, did we speak to human beings, or did we reach out through an online quaer'. we called them individually and we had a series of requests that we asked them. okay. Okay. In conversations I've had with people in thele community, it's my understanding that it's a two to four process, whether we do internal or external. So I don't know if we're ready to have the conversation, if we're simply talking, do we

083want to do internal versus external? Is that the conversation we're having? yes. okay. I, I am open right now to starting off with an internal search. I've got to say, I'm not super enthusiastic about doing like paid online advertisements. I think I said this in the last meeting, I think, like word of mouth and people are reaching out to people, speaking directly to them is much more powerful than someone seeing an add on anything. So, I have some concerns about doing this internally. I have concerns about doing it externally, because of us when we hired external firms searches, we weren't thrilled with how that went. So, you know, I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of my colleagues but, I do think you know, last meeting I was much more concerned about getting this done in

084a quick manner. I'm less concerned about that. I think we need to make a plan today for like a two to four-month timeline. I think we need to have a plan to make an interim. I, I agree with the idea that we need to do this right, not necessarily fast. okay. I'm going to make a motion and then go to you. So I would like to make a motion that we start with the an internal search and have a report back by NOVEMBER 12th meeting to see how many applicant and at that time, if we're not qualified then we can go out for a external search. second. any board member comment? MS. Alhadeff? thank you, I support the motion. I think we need to try to a, save money, and b, use our resources. One

085of the things I would ask is there is 47 people that have the educational law certified lawyers, I can send you the link. They give their names, address, office cell phone number and personal cell phone number. I think we should be very strategic on reaching out to all 46 people, because MS. Batista is on that list. if you change your mind. to give them that personalization and ask and walk them through it. But be very specific about it. I would like to see the list that is specifically who you reached out to, how many times and keep reaching out to those people it's just a one and I don't call them back again. thank you. ms. Leonardi. yeah, I agree with that. I again, I don't want us to limit ourselves just to those individuals.

086And I think you know, the general counsel have a very small district in the state MAY not, they MAY be a good fit, they MAY not be. I just hope that we don't stick to the individuals but we're reaching out to other agents and other agencies that obviously fill the job description 'cause I can see a scenario where the general counsel is a large urban city in florida would be able to do this job well. And they MAY not be. I think I just really don't want us to limit ourselves and I cannot emphasize enough to MS. Alhadeff's point that we're reaching out with a phone call, speaking to people in real life. Thank you. MS. Bulman. I agree with the personal touch. So I, you know, I think, we don't want to limit and

087so, I appreciate the fact that there is x-number of people that are board certified in education law. There are, I'm sure a vast additional people that would qualify for this in another capacity. And I think there is it's something that we have to take into consideration when I was talking to some people about this, but the affordability issue of living in broward, are you really getting somebody from a much more affordable part of the state to come down here to leave their position. There is a lot of considerations and we have a very specific kind of, situation in broward. So, I mean, obviously reaching out to the people that are board certified that is low hanging fruit, that's obviously, it does not take rocket science to get to that point. I think if we're going

088to do an internal search, that we need to look at broader candidate pool, the most obvious to me would be other government attorneys that have the ability, that are familiar with working within a government setting and having a board that they're, accountable to and working in this kind of area. So is would, I think, I don't know if we need to add that, or I don't know. I just. we're going to talk about the application process next. but I think if we're going to do internal, we're need to get as broad a pool as we can. That's government but also private because there is people, that MAY want to, you know, they MAY be at the end of the their career, they've done litigation, billable hours, they've had leadership position and they would want to

089come and try something like that. I don't know how you're going to identify those people but they MAY be. DR. Lozano. What would internal search look like? so I'm very confident with our team that will bring you some candidates that you'll be happy with. As we're going broader, I feel that's where the $50,000, $80,000 request to market and assist my team. We can certainly do the personalized calls with the list but if we're going to broaden the scope that $5,000 request will assist my team in getting more applicants in a broader pool. so I have a question, does miz motion need to include how much money, then? MS. Batista? That was kind of presentation for internal. So we vote for internal? yes. just want to make sure. I'm confused about that, general counsel. We just

090went through a whole bunch of training that told us what to do and not how to do it. And if the superintendent and DR. Lozano feel they need to spend the money, they're not in the business. I say go find us candidates, if you need to spend budgeted money to do this, you have a recruiting budget. I don't want to get into the micromanagement. that's what MS. Batista just said. she did? yes. that was brilliant, maybe louder next time. MS. Bulman. this is very important job. I think we have to do what we have to do to get the right candidates, either internal or external. So it's like, if you save money with the search and we end up either waste a lot of time without a good candidate, I think like let's put our

091resources into finding the best candidates and not limit that. anybody else? All those in favor of the motion and the motion was to go with an internal search with a report back on NOVEMBER 12th as to how many applicants there are so we can determine whether we want to change that motion or not? sorry. I had another question. To what extent because the legal services committee play a role in that? Okay. all those in favor of the motion say aye. aye. niz opposed say no. Motion carries unanimously. Okay, so the next part of the discussion is the application process. Does staff want to talk about that? so the next step in the process would be to determine the application process. We wanted hear your feedback on what you would like that to look like as

092well as the role of the legal services committee. So we have our general application but often times we can include specific questions and you can even decide if you would more so legal services since they'll be the first ones to see them, would you like to see responses written, would you like us to get written virtual responses, we wanted get feedback on what you're envisioning that process to look like and if there will be some specific questions that you wanted us to obtain answers on so if you're screening the candidates, you have a better item on what the person MAY look like and bring to the table for you. I have a question, do we have an application -- do you have an application already like a template that you're using? I think we would

093need to see what that looks like to be able to give comment? we have our stand art application that anybody who applies to a position completes, but we can add questions to an enhance that application to enhance. what does that standard application include, generally? generally, name a dress, where you want to school, your jobs that you've held, how long you've held them, a brief statement on your responsibilities and those positions and then there is some disclosure questions that we ask along those lines. But it's usually a application to gather an overview of the person and then depending on the positions that we're advertising for we'll ask specific questions for that position and ask for answers to those questions. Other times we ask a person to provide a video in answering those questions. We ask that

094a presentation. So it's more job dependent on what we want to see. And to help guide you in the screening process where you can narrow it down to some finalist that you really want to bring forward. thank you. DR. Holness. thank you, MADAM Chair. As far as the process, application process. I would like talent acquisition to play a greater role in the candidates that would end up going to legal services. In terms of not just a, filtering the minimum qualification but also taking a look at the preferred qualification providing some sort of a scoring ranking system to those who meet more of the preferred qualifications and then, that is then presented to legal services counsel for further review and then taken to the board. I guess the way I understand it here, and maybe I'm

095wrong, they will require minimum qualifications and then all of those who meet the minimum qualifications will then go then go to legal services counsel. I would prefer that they identify not only a minimum qualification but provide a ranking or scoring on those who meet the qualification before it goes to legal services counsel. And then they take those candidates and filter that out to determine who comes to the board. DR. Lozano. so we definitely, through the review of the application process, look at both the minimum and preferred and we can provide a rubric for the committee or entire board with minimum and preferred, qualifications each candidates meets. And we can also do a prescoring as well and provide it to the legal services committee scored by the talent acquisition team. got it, so MADAM Chair, I

096would prefer within the airline of work that talent acquisition, basically does the scoring or the ranking based upon what you feel, how the feel the candidates meet the qualififation before goesto lelegaseserves cououilil.. I dot want t that lele to be e e role played by legal council when DR. Lozano has the experience to be able to look at those applications and provide a scoring, and that would go to council to take it from there. As opposed legal counsel taking the qualification and determine a scoring, I would rather see done prior before it goes to legal services counsel. anybody have any objection to what DR. Holness is asking? MS. Bulman. and I apologize if this was already spoken. So are you, this is before we actually interview somebody? correct. okay. So you're. so what we would

097do and I think legal services would appreciate if hr provides them all the qualified candidates and the screening complete to like what DR. Holness is recommending, will also, you know, give the entire list. So the committee can see all of the resume you but it will greatly assist them in time management if we provide them a completed packet with a rubric completed. yeah, okay. so MADAM Chair. In terms of that process, is it just a suggestion that we make? Or is it a motion? Or what are we doing? MS. Batista? you can make a motion. okay, so I would like to make a motion that talent acquisition, not only screen for minimum qualifications but also for preferred qualifications and provide legal services counsel with a and DR. Lozano, you can correct me on the term,

098DR. Lozano and talent acquisition provide legal services council with a ranking? Or? correct. And then what the legal services committee would do is look at the rankings and say, based on this, there is a clear line of delienation we want to recommend to the entire board for finalist, every one who scored 100 and above, let's bring five, let's bring three, based on the total number of qualified candidates. right. So MADAM Chair, it's not taking any sort of, it's still given the legal services committee latitude to decide who they want. It's just taking a lot of work off of them and the expertise leaving that up to acquisition. So the motion then is for talent acquisition to screen the applicants for minimum as well as provide a rank for those to legal services committee to be

099able to make the final decisions as to what candidates come to the board. second. any public comment on the motion? Board member discussion? just wanted to clarify that there is, you know, settled by law for the legal services committee and there are five members to the legal services committee that include the superintendent, and myself in addition to the three board memebers. So I think to just say the legal services committee is going to a no-nomer, so if you can just make sure that there is at least discussion so everybody understand is the only three people involved is the three people. my motion is still going to be in place for a shortly voting on, but I would also like to talk about the composition of the legal services committee based on MS. Batista's comment before

100we vote. I think she is saying that I think it's important that we determine that. I don't think we're determining anything, we talked about that last week. So MS. Batista and the superintendent wouldn't be part of the decision-making. So I think what MS. Batista is saying, in your motion, it should say the board memebers that serve. so I would like to clarify that as well. I know that was a suggestion but I don't believe that was a motion to exclude the superintendent and MS. Batista. I don't think we had a motion that we suggested that, but it was not in a motion. So I would like to find out why, and I understand rational, but what would be the problem if the superintendent and MS. Batista is on the legal services committee? MS. Batista. Yor

101we probably settled on that. DR. Hepburn? Or DR. Lozano? go ahead DR. Lozano. I think it's cleaner if it's just the three board memebers that serve on the legal services committee to ask the general counsel to participate, could or could not. But I don't think that's going to bring you any different information than the three serving board memebers and the superintendent as well. The general counsel position works directly for the board so the board handling the hiring of the general counsel position makes the most sense. okay, so I was wondering what would be the problem with the superintendent, is there a conflict? I'm not understanding why the exclusion of the superintendent I can somewhat understand. But what would be the conflict. I'm just not understanding. I'll weigh in DR. Holness. DR. Lozano hit it on

102the nod, this position reports back to the board so do I. My, typically when we hire, anybody it's the hiring manager that is doing the hiring and part of the interview process. And so I just see a conflict that I'm going to directly report to the board and chief auditor's office for me to give my input just to make the process cleaner, without any influence from my part versus what the board is looking for. I understand. So my motion with the understanding that the legal service committee consist of the three board memebers. okay. Still second, the motion. Any discussion? MS. Alhadeff. so DR. Hepburn, just to look at it a different way, I see, you, and your staff, you were directly every day and all day long with the general counsel. So we do al

103view you're opinion. So maybe not in this, process that you weigh in but I think it's your important does matter. Examine maybe that is having individual conversations with board memebers but we do want your opinion for sure. thank you. MS. Rupert did you want to speak on the motion? just clarification. Would legal services committee be able to look at all the resume not and just rank them? yes, the idea is they would bring all of them just ranked. Right. perfect, thank you. all right. But let me clarify, if they didn't meet the qualifications, they wouldn't go to the committee, is that correct? You would only be sending the minimum qualified, minimum requalified? that would be our plan, but want to see the ones that we determine not to be qualified, we can do that too,

104that's the will of the board. okay beinger MS. Alhadeff. I was going to say within this process if the board wants to have two more people from the board just to be in this process not specifically on the legal kefshs committee, this way you have 5. Somebody later can make a motion to add more people just to this process. MADAM Chair? hold on one second. DR. Zeman. all right. My understanding is that this board composed of whom ever we designate, are simply drawing a-line and say we're going to interview, 3, 5 or 7, they're going to keep going down the rank and go through the rank scores and say above goes forward, away from this, we hold, is that correct, chair? it could be. We're still trying to determine that it. I think the idea

105is that they would give recommendations to the board. But as a board, if we wanted to look at all of them, we still, we're a board of nine. We would still be able to vote on, on who should be interviewed. If I'm not mistaken, when we look for, I think it was the superintendent, my brain is muscled with a lost things. But there were aemations. That came forward but I saw -- it's a recommendation to us but since we would all be getting the information to go through, you can still, if there was somebody not recommended, somebody from the board can still bring that forward. terrific. I'm glad that we understand that. I think three board memebers is enough. Because the another six of us, will be able to see. And if we see somebody

106jumping based on a complete pact, we can do that with four. It's a body of nine. These three have no statutory to make decisions over the board. So if this they report that out, I think three is going to be enough because you'll still be able to review all the a lick ants. Le we can pull some somebody on the list and we just think look at what they've done. Or here's something that we view not making them eligible. That is our authority as a board. I hope we take this very seriously. I would value the superintendent input as MS. Alhadeff's said, but I respect the position which is clear that he doesn't want to judge candidates because they're an equal report to the school board overtime. So I think the three is going to

107be plenty. I think they're fully qualified to in essence look over the shoulder and say great let's do this. I hope it's a minimum in position in your school. It's the school board khail and MS. Bulman, MR. Cervera and MS. Leonardi. Okay. So I think we can mack this easy. Let the three pick them and we'll all review it and move on. DR. Holness. thank you, MADAM Chair. I can go either way, I understand having five as well. I know that talent acquisition is going to sit all the minimum candidates with their ranking system, legal services committee is going to narrow that down and they'll have the autonomy to do it however they want. I know at some point, they're going to probably need consensus and I think reaching consensus is better with five than

108three. I would be more in line of five, because what is going to come to the board is the nair owing down of candidates from whatever number they receive, to whatever they submit to us. I just think it would be easier with more than than three for them to come to a consensus if there is any debate that would come before us. So I would be supportive of five. I don't know if we need a vote on that. let's vote on the original motion and then we'll come back to that. Anybody else on the -- can you repeat your motion, one more time? if I can remember. Okay. The motion is for talent acquisition to recruit candidates who meet the minimum qualifications as well as the preferred qualifications and provide a ranking system to the

109legal service committee who will then use, autonomy in determining which candidates come to the board. all those in favor of the motion say aye. aye. any opposed say no. Motion passes unanimously. Okay beinger -- okay, does anybody want to make an additional motion? board member alhadeff do you want to make a motion? I move to add DR. Zeman and DR. Holness to this process? To add to the just this process, with the additional member were from legal service committee. is there a second? second. any public comment on the motion? Board member discussion on the motion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. aye. all those opposed say no. no. want to do a roll call? roll call on the motion. Board memebers cervera? hixon? no. holness. yes. leonardi. no. rupert. thompson. yes. zeman.

110yes. alhadeff. yes. and bulman. yes. -- no. thank you. motion fails, 5-4. thank you, I would also like to make a motion. So I would like to move that along with the application, that's there that we ask candidates to provide a written, a virtual video that explains why they're applying, what relevant experience they have, applicable to florida education law and their experience supervising a team. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Public comment on the motion? Board member discussion on the motion? DR. Zeman. chair I'm curious where in the process, are you suggesting this? Just for them to apply or once they're selected to move forward with the next stage of the process? part of application process to attach a video? Kind of standard in today's world so that it gives the committee and us a

111way to capture some of those specific things that we want to know, so that we know if we want them to move on the process. let me just, I'll be curious if our staff views that as a standard practice at this point? Or is it a standard practice once they're selected for kind of a next round of interview process? DR. Lozano? it would be the will of the board, however we have used that in teacher recruiting. We have a series of questions we ask teachers and they turn it in a video format for us to screen them, sometimes it includes a lesson. I believe it's up to legal services committee, the board what you want as your legal services committee, what are you going to want to help narrow down your choices to bring forward

112to the board? So I would want you to have as much information as possible so you can bring forward the candidates at that time. If you wanted the legal services committee if they're doing that in their screening. I just have two concerns and I don't know how to, what my thought are on the motion. One is, I don't think anybody's physical appearance has anything to capability with their job. Number one. And bhu record somebody, you're getting a lot of information that, can sway people's opinions that are not about the qualifications for the job, that's number one. Number 2, you're asking people to do a lot more work to apply for the job. We MAY want to do it, somebody who turns in a basic application and becomes a director. But we're raising the stakes of

113people applying. But a lot of motions were to expand the pool of people to apply. So I think on balance largely for the first point, I don't want any applicant for any school job never feel what they look like has anything to do with their ability to get a job. So I just in general, would prefer to use that when we have a small set at the end and think, we picked 7 but we only want to have three, let's have the 7 if they choose, record an interview or do an audio recording or present their work in any manner that they see fit because I don't want this board to be swayed by any physical appearances or any of the other information you would get through that method. So I've talked myself out of

114this supporting but I would prefer to do this when we get to a smaller group of people. But I think when we get to a smaller group we're going to invite them here anyway. Thanks chair. and I would be open to being not video, I would just want the answers to those questions, it had nothing to do with what they looked like. MS. Alhadeff. so in regards to the video, I, I'm a bit concerned because we're trying to get more people to apply, and also, when they do the video, the video does not just go to us, it's publicly out there and I know that this is a very public position so, you have to have thick skin broad shoulders to be the general counsel of broward county schools. However, I think there could be

115a better cadence and I don't want to prevent somebody from applying because of the video. would you like to make a friendly amendment to it? I don't mind it being written. I thought the video would be easier. MS. Thompson. I actually think the video component is very important because a lost what the counsel does is communicate, so giving presentation gives us a way to see how they verb eyes thoughts. I don't think that's difficult to create a video, for 90 percent of the population. But I do think it's an imperative think to make sure they can communicate with us. So I would not be in favor of getting rid of it MS. Bulman. this is with the initial application that they're going to have a video? that's the motion. Sm. Okay. the main point is

116to get that information. Why are they applying? What is their relevant experience applicable to education law and what is their relevant experience supervising a team. so when somebody applies for a job, they would have a cover letter that the questions would be covered. we're getting directctthth to inincludit. maybe e a a cor r leer. You u owowi I wawas gogog g to say to msms. Thompson's point about the video, we're dimetric for this. I would say, no I don't want to apply for this. There is a lot more people that has better time doing that. She likes making video. Would I die before doing. Maybe for a second round once we've chosen the people that we want to talk about, if we want to add a component. But to take people out in the first

117round, I don't like that. And I think they shoulds as a practitioner, be writing a cover letter explaining why they want the job. If you can't figure that out, they're not a good fit. okay. MS. Leonardi. yeah, I had cover letter in my notes. And the reason I support the idea of cover letter, I think those are very good questions but, I'm also interested in other questions. So I would like again to continue with this philosophy of like, as broad of a pool as possible like I would be interested to know, their experience working with boards. And, you know, reporting to nine people. You know like, I think there is other questions that I would like to know that perhaps a cover letter would address. And I think there is something to lien from what

118somebody includes in the cover letter and what they don't include. So if they're not talking about those things that are relevant to the position, we know that perhaps they're not, they don't have a full understanding what the position demands. To the communicating verbally piece, would we be conduct interviews in which they would communicate verbally with us. you would let us know and we will follow your lead. So this board will decide if we're going to bring them here and in the public where you will determine how they move through each stage of the process and the will of the board will determine what that looks like for each candidate. I think and I think that's a better assessment of somebody's communication skills than regarding a vao. Being able to answer questions. In the last superintendent

119search it was really interesting for me on paper what I saw, and then in the one on one interviews that I had with the different candidates my thoughts and opinions changed about the candidates. So assessing their verbal communities is much more relevant in an interview setting. So I support the concept of a cover letter. I would like to make a saoubt motion that the candidates would include a cover letter along with their application. second. okay, all any public comment on the substitute motion? DR. Lozano. and in the cover letter we're going to ask them to respond to the three questions? no, that's not part of the motion. okay. all those any board discussion. All those in favor of the substitute motion say aye. aye. all those opposed say no. No. Motion passes. So there will

120be a cover letter with no direction. So the next thing, I think we covered a lot of this but the role of the legal services committee. So I guess we just want to be clear. Here's what I have down here. so they will screen candidates, right? They will interview top candidates, we have to talk about this. So everybody is okay with the legal that the three board memebers from the legal services committee will be screening candidates based on, rankings that are given by hr? Okay. The next question is, will the board memebers from the legal services committee interview top candidates, identified from the screening? Or is that something that we want to happen? With the whole board? Okay, so not just the legal they're just going to bring us and we'll decide as a board

121who we want to interview. including, chair and we talked about this earlier, some that they MAY have taken off the list, we can still vote on the actual list that we want to move forward. this is full man. I mean, the poured needs to interview the candidates but in the interest of time, do we want to widle it down and have an initial interview round for the committee? Because we're going to widle it down based on the written responses? so I just give some input, some of the concerns up to five searches actually six because of the general counsel. And the concerns that all different variations of the board have had is that they didn't like not being part of the bigger picture. So I think that's the idea is you'll bring recommendations, we'll go

122off of that but if there is something from the pool that needs to be included it will be part of that public discussion and from there we'll decide, if we're interviewing two or three. so then we're going to widle it down publicly through our discussion? yes. MADAM Chair. I just want to remind the board that the three board memebers from the legal services committee, that those meetings will also be public meetings. that was my other question yesterday about sunshine. So they will be noticed meetings and they will be public. if legal service committee wants to meet together, then yes, those would have been to be public meetings. But if they screen individually? correct. then they can do that individually without a public meeting. That's where we need some direction on legal services committee's role as

123far as after your screening or during your screening, do you want to meet to discuss that or do you want to individually screen and rank them and perhaps you want to interview the top candidates you screen or you MAY want to bring those to the board. And then you would not need a meeting with services if you each ranked them individually and then we brought forward to you the top candidates from each of the three board memebers or whatever they want to recommend come forward. MS. Alhadeff? no, I think the legal services committee should meet, discuss, talk, evaluate, and then make the recommendations to the board where we interview. correct. Do you want to make a motion? so I move that the legal services committee made up of the three board memebers, meet to evaluate

124potential candidates for general counsel. second. any public comment on the motion? Board member discussion? Okay, all those in favor of the motion say aye. aye. any opposed say no. Motion passes. Okay. So. All right, we did that. Interim general counsel, yes? We're not done, when we finish this, we'll vote on the whole item. We have three more bullet points. I have more questions, what is happening at the NOVEMBER 12th meeting? DR. Lozano. Based on the motion that was passed what will happen NOVEMBER 12th. so they NOVEMBER 12th meeting, we can give you an update on councilmember hand -- candidates we received. The original timeline the add would have been posted for about two weeks at that point, week and a half and we can give you an update on the number of candidates and legal,

125we can forward you the resume as we get them or if you want them in one packet. And then the 12th, we can do an update and if you wanted to meet and discussion your screenings, you can certainly schedule time after the 12th or whatever you're schedule would allow. okay, so really on the 12th is just an update? Are we getting names or just an update? we can provide whatever the board's direction. can you make that as a board item? And then with the names. I think the point on the 12th was to see internally are we getting big enough pool and we can have discussion do we want to move to external. so what is the vote going to be on? If it's an item? well we don't vote on all items, just to

126include on well I mean, we would, we vote to accept things, we don't necessarily vote to, they would just be giving ace list of all the people who applied at that time. okay. so we would get it, yes. okay. I suppose, yeah, then I wonder what rule the legal services committee has. I think that will really opus. I can envision us having then a discussion about, like all the candidates, I can see that happening. well the point was was to determine whether we had enough candidates to move forward or go to an external church. -- search. which is what the item MAY be. that's what I was trying to get to. that MAY be the MADAM Chair. MS. Batista. as far as the item that will be presented to the board on the 12th, I

127believe that there is a chilling affect if you're going provide names if you're going to provide names to the board. yes, the number. and the according to hr but if you provide the names, sometimes people that would otherwise apply, they MAY not be feel comfortable, if they're not going to make finalist. when they apply isn't that public? true, but the public, does not ask those questions at the time. that's fine. Do we agree, it does not mat per the names? I only said that. the only question about that chair, we will not be done with the application window on the 12th of NOVEMBER, it sounds like? based on the timeline? When does the window of application close? so we had tentatively had and again with the timeline that you had, but we posted by the

128end of the week, it would run for the remainder of this week, next week would be the through the 3 1st and then it with run through the 7th and then give our legal services committee, again I want clarity to see if you want to us start screening because you'll have an idea by the 12th. it would be cool if it closed on the 7th and the staff can rank them, add psc meet before the 12th and then we bring that. That sounds very feasible and it would push the staff a little bit. I would suggest that three members of that committee meet in a public notice, it would be cool if we had an opportunity. If it does not work, if there is only one applicant and they don't qualify, we MAY want to

129hire a reciter. But we MAY be at a point that we think great, let's here's the next two or three weeks to do the next rounds of interviews, that would be awesome. yes, so we would need a meeting to week the week of the third, maybe that wednesday through thursday and friday. I thought you said the application closed on NOVEMBER 7th. correct. No it the 10th, would you need to meet on the 10th tuesday is a holiday. I don't know what holidays are anymore but that's great. it's veterans day. I'm not asking you to meet on any day. The pertinent question is can the members meet on the 7th and 12th to feed the pse system, so it sounds like that's the 10th, the friday? it's monday. we're screening as we get. is the 10th

130a holiday. I think we need to ask the three members if they're available on the 10th, otherwise they cannot do it on the 12th. right. I have a question also, based on that discussion, the item coming to us on the 12th would be to select people to interview? That would change the cadence of the time frame of the meeting, I want us to be clear what we're looking at on the 12th. Originally I just wanted to know how many people whether we need today pivot and move to external, that was the point of the motion. So what, would happen on the 12th, if all of those things we just talked about happen? if legal services committee is able to meet prior to the 12th, then on the 12th, we can make a decision on which

131finalist they would want to bring forward to the board to be interviewed by the board. If legal service committee is not able to meet by the 12th, we would still dwif an update on the board on a number of candidates and make a determination and based on the pool we want to continue with the internal process or expand the process and look at an external firms. so I think we would be able to let you know the mub of candidates by the 12th, what the pool looks like. Is would not want to put that time restraint on the legal services committee to have that short period to come back with this meeting with names of who is moving forward. i don't think that's enough for them to be able to do that, that's just my

132opinion. hi and to agree, I was not trying to rush that. I just wanted enough time that if we're not getting a huge pool based on our over efforts, then we would need as a board to have an opportunity to pivot and say, no we want to go externally, that was the whole point of that. But those on the legal committee, what are your thoughts? I can go either way. I'm happy to meet not the 10th. And you're right, we have something on the 109ing, I don't see why we can't, let me see what is the time parameters. 10 to 12. We'll be here anyway. So I, I can go either. I can make myself available if my colleagues are willing as well. MS. Leonardi? I'm available. I too can make myself available, thank you

133guys. okay. MADAM Chair,. DR. Holness. I'm just wondering, the relevance of the legal meeting before 12th, because on the 12th, talent acquisition can give us the answer we're looking for. I don't want to rush them and then, because we're, on the 12th what we're looking for is do we have adequate or enough candidates to which talent acquisition can determine we don't need servicess, they're going to take the qualified applicant and determine which ones come to the board. well I would say, we can compromise. So if the legal council committee, the three board memebers can meet and determine, are they really qualified and just come back with that piece, I think the 12th is too early to say, we want an interview. I think it's too much to add on that particular board meeting. But they

134can come back with how many they think are good solid candidates. They don't necessarily on the 12th, bring us back who we want to interview which would require we have more than one meeting, I hope that's okay. but I thought talent acquisition is make thating determination there are their ranking. they are but just because they're qualified does not mean that somebody would be qualified for the job we're looking for. So the committee can meet and have that discussion and bring us their thoughts on that, not necessarily recommendations but yes, we have enough internally to finish the process this way or no, we really think. The whole point of the 12th is do we stay with internal or are we moving for an internal process. so they're going to come back to us, not with recommendations

135but whether or not we have enough qualified candidates? Because we want to make sure that they don't come and we have a long discussion. I'm trying to say the same thing, so yes. DR. Zeman. I'm just going to tell you my opinion, I'm not going to be have my time in doing the factor of the search. So if we have to stay three hours later on the 12th, let me finish. There is a chance that we have a lot of applicant and legal services meets and has a clear break and comes up with x-number of people that they want to interview and on the 12th, we decide to move forward with that list. But I don't want our time to be the limiting factor. And that means if we have to have a 12-hour meeting

136on the 12th, I don't want to be responsible foern getting the best general counsel before MS. Batista goes away. So, I just, I don't know that that will happen but if it does happen, I'm willing to spend the time to do whatever we need to get this process moved through. MS. Alhadeff? well and also to that point, I think we also have to keep in mind, if somebody is applying for this, they're not going to be available forever. So we cannot be dragging our feet. You're going to be going into thanksgiving, the holidays, so, I think if we have strong candidates that we should expedite our process, so I'm forward to whatever we need to do before we meet on the 12th. MADAM Chair. one last one. okay. I'm just trying to get understanding as

137to what we're doing, my understanding based on what is presented here, we're asking a simple question, do we have enough candidates or do we continue screening? Now if we're changing that goal on the 12th to also interview candidates as a board and that's a whole different ballgame, we can be sheer 14 hours but if we're simply answering, do we have enough candidates? Ifif wedo, ththeywiwill dedeterm whwhich h on thehebrbring us on for interview. But if we're doing all of that, I don't want to blur everything. seems like we're sort of split on what happens there so we probably need to make a motion and take a vote. I'll make a motion. I move that the item that comes to us on the 12th is to determine whether we continue with the internal search or we

138move to external search not about interviews. second. any public comment on the motion? Board member comment on the motion? DR. Holness. thank you, MADAM Chair, so just to understand your motion, if this motion passed and on the 12th we are simply moving, if we go to an external source and if we have adequate candidates. that would be a second meeting. should we have sufficient candidates will meet to determine which ones will come to us? that's correct. part of the reason, is if they meet on the 10th, I don't think there is enough fiem for us as board member to go through all the paperwork that comes to us by the 11th, which is a holiday even though we're all working, to be ready to vote on the 12th. Understand we I understand the immediate and

139we can have a meeting. I don't want to rush everything because I don't mind if it's the next week or whatever. We're here for the next week for our organizational meeting and that's only in the morning so we can do a special school board meeting which would then give us time to read everything and to have a good discussion. It's important for me that we're not rushing it examine trying to squeeze if somewhere that we don't have the time that we need. It's been moved and seconded. Any other comment? DR. Zeman. I wonder as a friendly issue amendment, I don't want to say what we're not going to do I think you can say that you want an idea brought. I don't think it's appropriate or fair to say we're not going to do anything.

140Members can make motions for virtually anything and so if, if there is devine intervention on the meet ing of the 109ing and the meeting of the 12th, we've all read the material and we want to move forward, that's a long shot but if that happens, I would like the authority to do that. If you would agree to say we'll bring an item to make a determine about hiring external resources, I don't want the second half because that ties your leagues's. I just want to be clear, it's my motion is to keep recommendation frz coming to us on the 12th. I don't you can do that. I literally think that a member of this board can say something will not happen. I don't think that's legal. MS. Batista? I think it's up to the board to

141figure out what it is that, you know, how you want the process to proceed. If you know, if you feel that, I mean, you can tying the hands of board memebers at that point by saying that you don't want a certain item to come forward, even if it would happen to be ready to come forward at the time. But it's up to the board. but it's legal. That's the question? yes. thank you. MS. Thompson. I'm fine with your motion as it currently is. DR. Holness. MADAM Chair, I support your motion because if we do anything otherwise, then, week five through seven or eight, might as well forget it, because we're saying, I don't want to rush anything. We're now, if we do anything otherwise, we're now removing what we felt to be the roll of

142the legal services, committee to have time to look at all of these things and bring us recommendation and for us to have time to go through it. I think your motion is very wise and it would be best as a board that we support your motion and continue with the recommendation sxz discuss the recommendations presented by talent acquisition. any other comment on the motion. can you repeat the motion. if I can remember. The motion was to, for the meeting on NOVEMBER 12th, for the committee to bring back to us trying to think of what MAY motion was. whether or not we have sufficient. right for the item that comes back on the 12th of NOVEMBER is for us to determine whether we're going to continue with the internal search based on the number of qualified,

143and I don't think acceptable is right, the candidates or would we be moving into external search. We're not looking for recommendation from the committee to come to us on the 129ing, we can do a special school board meet anding do the following week. MS. Alhadeff. I just think that would behoove us to have the legal committee meet on the 10th and share the recommendations with the board on the 12th and then, on the 18th, the board have a special school board to do the interviews. I think it's too quick to determine if we're going to flip to an external firm. Let the process happen, unless the legal services come back and say we don't anything. that's the point of the 129ing. -- 12th. it's just keep the process moving, doesn't hurt us to keep to

144give us the information with the all of their back up information. when we made that suggestion, everybody said it was a bad idea to put the list of people's names. We're going in a circle here. We had that discussion and we said no, we didn't want people to have their name on their so MS. Bulman. well just a clarify that. What are, at some point we have to know their names. once they apply, it's public information. okay. are we putting it on an agenda item? What is the process look like moving forward? If we identify we got six candidates, we meet on the 10th, we report back. MS. Batista? so I think there is a difference between releasing the entire list of every single applicant versus releasing the final list, the qualified applicants that are,

145those people have to make a decision and figure out whether they want their name out there. But once you become a finalist, every one expects that you will be your name will be released. so that should definitely be included in the information? but the legal counsel isn't deciding the finalist, the whole board is, they're just bringing to us the recommendations of who we should interview which would require us to spend a lot of time looking through it which I made the motion not to push it through the 12th because the meeting on the 10th and nobody working on the 11th and the meeting is on the 12th. There is not enough time to give that information and staff to turn around and put an item together that gives us that information. And for us to

146read it and make a really good decision, monday morning, that was the point of the motion, at that makes sense to do it on the 18th which bumps to a special meeting where we can then do that. It's just on the 12th we made a motion to ask them to report back to us, what does that pool, in just terms of numbers. So we can have an idea, are we doing well getting candidates internal or should we have a discussion on maybe we need to add an external company to this so we can expand our pool. That was the point of all of this. MS. Leonardi. I'm trying to bring it up. I think we have to decide and we decide by voting on this motion what direction, what is the goal of the NOVEMBER

14712th meeting? So is the NOVEMBER 12th meeting is the goal of that to decide if this internal process is work or if we need to move to an external process or is the goal of the 12th to expedite our process and move keep things moving? If we decide that the goal for the 12th is to make a decision and whether or not we want to go external, I don't see the committee meeting on monday, i'm happy to do it. I think it creates a weird dynamic where the committee has more information than the rest of the board. So I think we have to decide, I'm, I air on the side of like, let's make a decision whether or not we're staying internal or external on the 12th. Like I said earlier, last week, I was

148operating with the desire to move things very quickly. Now, I feel, that we need to do things carefully and strategically and move, with a lost care. So that's where I am on this. thank you. MS. Rupert? thank you, MADAM Chair. Why couldn't we call candidate number 1, 2, 3, 4? You're still identifying people that you want, if 2 gets out, it gets out. I don't want it to be a something that keeps somebody from working for us would be a really good fit because they want their name going out. My other thoughts on what MS. Leonardi said. I believe the NOVEMBER 12th meeting, the committee meets after that meeting and then we do a special meeting for the 18th, I think that would give us plenty of time. It's an extra week, it's holidays and,

149you know, I don't want to be rushed through this process. And, I think that we do need to keep moving through the process and at times be savvy enough to know, when we need to pull back a little bit on the horse instead of an airplane. anybody else? all those in favor of the motion say aye. aye. all those opposed say no. no. two descending votes. Motion passes. Okay, the next item that we need to talk -- so are you good all of that part? So now we're in the interim council bullet. so just to clarify, on the 12th we're giving an update on the candidates. yes. is legal services still meeting on the 10th? Or do you want to meet on the 12th? MS. Al ha def. -- alhadeff. if the legal committee is

150going to meet on the 10th and talk about all the document sxz all the names, it's kind of defeating what you just voted on. not necessarily, on the 12th, they have a regular school board meeting. They would be meet at 8:00 o'clock. Sometime before the end of the week, I would think because we want enough time for us to be able to read for the 18th. correct. I suggest when the board would like to interview the finalist and then you can work backwards what they would want to confirm with the candidates. ?Fm okay. so on time your timeline what do you have an interviewing candidates. I have trying to be cog any of your time, you're already meeting on 15th. otherwise you have DECEMBER 2, you've got three weeks in DECEMBER. You've fwot -- got

151to wait for DECEMBER meeting. and I believe a lot are in tampa that week. okay, that would give you either legal services committee can we meet after the school board meeting, 13th or 14th, we need time to schedule interviews with candidates so keep that in mind, you can come back anytime, you've got the week of the 17th, week of the 1st or 8th. but I thought we would have a special school board meeting to discuss what the legal committee had brought forward to us, so they're going to have to meet before. So either the 13th or 14th. so what we could do is have each of the legal services committee, do their rankings of their recommendations, we can collect that from them individually, tabulate it altogether, and bring that that to the 18th to share

152the results. we made a motion for them to talk. or individually, that is the will of the board. I'm pretty sure we made a motion on this item that would meet together and bring us recommendation to do that. So they're going to have to meet the 13th or 14th, you all have. Could they do that vir fully? -- virtually. I believe it has to be in-person, because and it's open to the public as well. And then also, chair, can you help staff clarify, will MS. Leonardi serve as the point person for that committee as it relates to the board? say that again. I think somebody we need to facilitate that meeting and if it's a board member, we need to have a staff to run the items by. Unless I'm mistaken, MS. Batista? so somebody

153will probably need to serve as the chair of the group or the point person of the group if that's necessary. Or, I don't know what hr has in mind. There is only three board memebers so they can provide all information to the three of them. I don't know if you necessarily need, a chair, per se. can hr facilitate the meeting? if that's the will of the board. and you have the information to write the item to us. and hr would have to take the minutes because there are minutes required because it's a -- . MADAM? MS. Alhadeff. it's never been done that way, the board member is the chair. So if MS. Leonardi wants to be the chair or if we want to vote on who is going to be the chair, I think MS.

154Leonardi should be the chair for that. MADAM Chair. DR. Holness. I move that board member leonardi chair the meeting. second. all in favor say aye. aye. motion carries unanimously, quickest vote ever. So are you good on that? are you going to decide on a date for them to meet? oh yes. chair we can go through the committee chair and make sure that we get quorum and I don't think you have to determine that. I'm sorry. I disagree. Because I don't want my schedule to fill up from now and then. What are the dates. NOVEMBER 13th through the 14th. I cannot do the 14th. MADAM Chair, we didn't vote on the motion. yes, we passed unanimously. so can we do the 14th, do we need to do it on the 14th? it's up to you. can

155we do it on the 14th? Yes, thank you. perfect. With 8 minutes left before the workshop starts. We have to finish up with the interim, the discussion about the interim general counsel. So there is a couple of questions. So interim has happened a couple of different ways, one way is that we went out just like we would more the actual information and look for an interim. Another way we just task assign somebody. So I think first if staff, you made, mention of this already, to have you, is there somebody it was a question holness had earlier, is there somebody that could be task assigned to the general counsel? yes, there is. perfect. So there is that possibility the other possibility is again, the same thing internally, do we want hr to look for an interim

156general counsel or go for outside firm? Those are the kind and we need to have an interim or task assigned by the time MS. Batista leaves which is JANUARY 9th, right. MS. Thompson. my preference is task assigned person. okay. MS. Alhadeff. I think we can do try to do a task assignment, but I think we need to allow, whoever who wants to do it to come forward, that it's a equal opportunity to then have the board decide who would be task assigned. If there is more than one person that would like to do it? okay. so would we want an application process? For tasks for interim? again, if we continue with the internal process, you're looking at three to six weeks somebody serving as an interim if we need an interim after JANUARY 9th. So

157you're not looking for an extended period of time. If on ththe 12ththweplan to gogo teteal, yoyorere extendnding e e titime t this conversation ma be better served to have on the 129ing, once we make that decision to stay internal or external. That MAY determine if you want to advise for an interim or not, depending on the amount of time we MAY anticipate needing an interim general counsel. okay, DR. Holness. thank you, MADAM Chair, I don't see why we can't do it simultaneously, and I would also prefer that hr, as well as MS. Batista, provide recommendation for interim for those who maze qualify for interim. okay. Do you want to make a motion? I'd like to make a motion that one, we simultaneously seek interest for the interim position if we have to and that MS.

158Batista and hr provide recommendations at the appropriate time for interims. is there a second? Okay. And I'll just say, I don't want to be premature in looking for an interim, because I would not want to advertise and then not need them, because you're kind of giving false hope, I don't know if hope is the right word but you're giving somebody an idea that there would be a position for them and you're not sure if you're going to need that or not. It's important to know where we want to go with it. But I don't know if we want to start looking right now for an interim general counsel. Because we don't need one right now. We don't know if we're going to need one at all. Any other thoughts? Board memebers any motions you want

159to make? MS. Leonardi? this is going to be controversial but, given our history, I'm wondering if, if anyone wants to entertain and I don't know where I am on this, the idea of requiring the interim does not apply for the position. I only bring that up, because it's been an issue here in the past. And again, I don't have, I don't know where I am on that, I'm just wondering if anyone wants to entertain that? so being the person who has been here for a couple of times and got slammed on changing our minds on that, I would not want to make that a requirement because we found the superintendent that we liked as an interim and decided to make them the permanent one. I would not want to tie our hands that way. It

160eroded the public trust because we said one thing and we did something else. I don't know that the pool would be la large that we would want to make it smaller, so I would not be in favor of doing that. and I have another comment. So I very much support the idea of doing a task assignment. I think right now, if we're doing an internal search process for the general counsel position, I don't want any kind of distraction from that search, so I would support a task assignment. I agree. And do we need to do a motion on that right now? Do you need direction on that? Or should we cross that bridge. no we don't need to make that decision tonight we can talk about that as we move forward in the process. okay.

161On the 12th, when we get a better idea of what the timeline MAY look like we can revisit that topic. Okay. I think we have, checked off all the boxes here. So, all those in favor of item number 2, with amendments say aye. any opposed say no. Motion carries unanimously. At 11:58, perfect. So we're going to, okay, so, okay, hold on. The scheduled meeting order of business for this special school board meeting has been completed seeing no obligation, I now adjourn this special school board meeting. We're going to take a recess to