01/17/2023 - Board Workshop

001Nadia Combs: GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY. WELCOME TO THE WORKSHOP -- THE SCHOOL BOARD WORK SHOP JANUARY 17, 2023. WE WILL BE GOING OVER TWO PARTS. FIRST PART WILL THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. AND MR. PORTER, YOU WILL BE LEADING THAT. AND THE SECOND PART IS ANALYZING AND LOOKING AT THE LEGAL SERVICES. THAT WILL BE TWO PARTS OF THE WORKSHOP. AND MY GOAL IS TO HOPEFULLY FINISH THE FIRST PART IN AN HOUR AND AN HOUR TO TALK ABOUT THE SECOND PART. AND -- I MEAN, MR. PORTER, WE WILL BEGIN AND GO AHEAD -- IF YOU WILL GO AHEAD -- MOTION TO ME TO TAKE NAMES SINCE MR. PORTER WILL BE LEADING THIS. I WILL TAKE NAMES FOR TODAY'S WORKSHOP. MR. PORTER, YOU MAY BEGIN. Jim Porter: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS. WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM

002THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IN NOVEMBER INDICATING THAT TWO -- ONE POLICY AND ONE PROCEDURE MAY BE OUT OF LINE WITH CURRENT LAW. SO WE HAVE REACHED OUT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO GET MORE CLARITY. THEY SENT MORE CLARITY. BEFORE YOU TODAY IS OUR -- REALLY TWO ITEMS. ONE THAT THE BOARD ACTS ON AND THE OTHER IS MORE FOR YOUR INFORMATION THAT THE BOARD DOES NOT HAVE TO ACT ON. THE FIRST INVOLVES THE BOARD'S RACIAL EQUITY POLICY. THIS POLICY WAS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD AND REALLY WAS CONSIDERED A NATIONAL MODEL AND RECEIVED NATIONAL AWARDS FOR THE POLICY. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IN THEIR LETTER IDENTIFIED THAT THE PURPOSE STATEMENT IN THE POLICY IS OUT OF LINE WITH CURRENT STATE LAW. A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT. TYPICALLY YOUR POLICIES DON'T HAVE PURPOSE STATEMENTS. THIS WAS DONE

003BECAUSE IT WAS CONSIDERED A NATIONAL MODEL AND THE BOARD ADOPTED IT WITH A PURPOSE STATEMENT. I AM GOING TO READ THE PURPOSE STATEMENT TO YOU. THIS IS WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IDENTIFIED AS PROBLEMATIC. PURPOSE, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS DESERVE RESPECTFUL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THEIR RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIVERSITY IS VALUED FOR SUCCESSFUL ACADEMIC OUTCOMES. INSTITUTIONAL RACISM THAT RESULT IN PARTICULARLY LOWER ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF PEOPLE OF COLOR THAN THEIR WHITE PEERS. WILL INCREASE ACHIEVEMENT INCLUDING ONE-TIME GRADUATION FOR ALL STUDENTS WHILE NARROWING THE GAPS BETWEEN THE HIGHEST AND LOWEST-PERFORMING STUDENTS. THAT IS THE PURPOSE STATEMENT. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION INDICATED THAT RUNS AFOUL OF FLORIDA STATUTE 1000.05 AS WELL AS ADMINISTRATIVE RULES THAT WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPTED AFTER THE CHAPTER DOCTOR AFTER THE LAW WAS PASSED. BEFORE YOU, YOU HAVE TWO OPTIONS. REMOVE THE PURPOSE STATEMENT

004AND KEEP THE POLICY IN PLACE. THE POLICY WOULD STILL BE THERE AND WILL STILL HAVE THE EFFECT OR YOU COULD CHOOSE -- THE BOARD COULD CHOOSE TO WRITE BACK TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND INDICATE THAT WE FEEL OUR POLICY IS ALIGNED WITH STATE STATUTE AND THAT WE -- WE DESIRE TO KEEP IT. THERE ARE RISKS INVOLVED WITH THAT APPROACH. AS YOU HAVE KNOWN FROM THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS WHEN WE HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND THE GOVERNOR, THEY HAVE BEEN SWIFT TO TAKE PUNITIVE ACTION AGAINST SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT DON'T FOLLOW WHAT THEY BELIEVE THE LAW IS. THOSE COULD INCLUDE FINANCIAL PENALTIES, WITHHOLDING MONEY, FINES AND POTENTIALLY REMOVING BOARD MEMBERS FROM OFFICE IF THE GOVERNOR FEELS YOU ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW. THOSE ARE OPTIONS FOR YOU. I WILL TELL YOU THAT

005NOWHERE IN THE STATUTE IS THE WORD INSTITUTIONAL RACISM MENTIONED BUT THAT IS THEIR OPINION OF THE LAW. THAT IS THE CHOICE BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY. I BELIEVE BECAUSE THIS IS A POLICY, THE SUPERINTENDENT DOES HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR YOU. AND YOU SHOULD HEAR THAT AND DISCUSS IT AND WE CAN GO FROM THERE. SO BASICALLY, TO BOIL IT DOWN, THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION HAS INDICATED OR DETERMINED THAT A PIECE OF OUR POLICY, THE PURPOSE STATEMENT, VIOLATES STATE LAW. YOUR OPTIONS ARE TO REMOVE THE PURPOSE STATEMENT AND KEEP THE POLICY OR PUSH BACK AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IN WHATEVER FORM THE BOARD THINKS IS APPROPRIATE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ARE RISKS INVOLVED WITH PUSHING BACK. I WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE SUPERINTENDENT. Addison Davis: THANK YOU, SIR, THROUGH THE CHAIR, TO MAKE CERTAIN WE CONTINUE TO

006COMPLY WITH THE LAW AND AT THE SAME TOKEN ADDRESS THE UNIQUE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY. WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT OUR COMMUNITY FEELS THAT WE CELEBRATE RICH DIVERSITY. AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO. I THINK THIS POLICY DOES. I WILL GO BACK TO WHAT MR. PORTER SAID RELATING TO CONSISTENCY IN OUR POLICIES. NONE OF OUR OTHER POLICY SOME TYPE OF PURPOSE STATEMENT. IF YOU LOOK IN THIS PARTICULAR POLICY AND YOU REMOVE THE PURPOSE STATEMENT, IT STILL CONTINUES TO PUT OWNERSHIP OF THE SUPERINTENDENT TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT I AM ACCURATELY ENGAGED IN OUR COMMUNITY. THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT THERE ARE SYSTEMS ADDRESSING RACIAL EQUITY WITHIN OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT. THAT OFFICER FOCUSED ON LEADERSHIP, TEACHING AND LEARNING. ABLE TO ACCELERATE THE WORK FOR EVERY ONE OF OUR STUDENTS. AT THE SAME

007TOKEN RECRUIT AND RETAIN A WORKFORCE THAT IS RICH AND DIVERSE AND ONE THAT REALLY ADDRESSES THE CONTINUOUS, YOU KNOW, OFFERINGS OF OUR STUDENTS AND BEING ABLE TO HAVE THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. THROUGH THIS PROCESS HOUSE BILL 7 PROVIDES, YOU KNOW, LANGUAGE RELATED TO BEING ABLE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. AND IT ALSO TALKS OF HOW INDIVIDUALS SHOULD NOT INHERENTLY FEEL THAT THEY ARE RACIST, SEXIST OR OPPRESSIVE AND ALSO BEING ABLE IN INDICATOR OF THE NEW SEXUAL REQUIREMENTS THAT NO PERSON REGARDLESS OF HIS OR HER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIENTATION OR SEX, THEY FEEL ANY TYPE OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST RELATED AND COMMITTED BY -- WITH ACTIONS COMMITTED IN THE PAST BY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SAME RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN OR SEX AS WELL. FOR ME, MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO REMOVE -- REMOVE THE

008PURPOSE STATEMENT AND CONTINUE TO IMPLEMENT THIS POLICY WHICH CONTINUES TO PROTECT OUR -- OUR COMMUNITIES. MR. GIBSON, ANYTHING THAT YOU MUCH WANT TO ADD FROM OUR SIDE? NO, I THINK YOU HIT THE MAJOR POINTS OF THE LEGISLATION THAT COULD BE PROBLEMATIC. Nadia Combs: OKAY, THANK YOU, SUPERINTENDENT DAVIS. I AM GOING TO GO AROUND. MEMBER GRAY. YOU WANTED TO SPEAK FIRST? Lynn Gray: I WANT TO THANK YOU, MR. PORTER, MR. GIBSON, AND SUPERINTENDENT DAVIS. THERE IS A FINE BALANCE THAT IS GETTING MORE DIFFICULT TO -- TO KEEP ON THE SCALE IN A EQUAL WAY. WE WANT TO PROMOTE DIVERSITY. AND WE DO THANKING TERRI CONNOR FOR PUTTING DIVERSITY BOOKS IN EACH CLASSROOM. AND WE NEED TO BE THE VOICE OF DIVERSITY. AS I SAID TO MONICA, I WANT US TO HAVE -- TO BE RECOGNIZED AS

009A DISTRICT OF DIVERSITY. IN SO DOING, IT IS A DANGEROUS WAY TO TAKE OUT WHAT PERCEIVABLY IS REAL, INSTITUTIONAL RACISM, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, AS WE ALL ARE LEARNING, IF WE DO NOT, AND THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE PARENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS, WE COULD FACE ANYTHING FROM A CLASS-ACTION SUIT TO REMOVAL OF BOARD MEMBERS BECAUSE IT IS NOW NOT ACCORDING TO FLORIDA STATE STATUTE. SO IT IS A DIFFICULT MANEUVER TO MAKE, BUT I AM SAYING IN PUBLIC THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSENSUS THAT I DO AGREE WITH SUPERINTENDENT DAVIS' RECOMMENDATION THAT WE REMOVE THAT PARAGRAPH. AND ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT DIVERSITY IS PARAMOUNT IN WHAT WE SAY, IN WHAT WE DO, AND ALL THE INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS AND ALL THE PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES WILL ALWAYS COMPLEMENT THE IDEA OF INCREASED DIVERSITY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE

010TO SAY. Nadia Combs: THANK YOU, MEMBER GRAY. MEMBER WASHINGTON? Henry "Shake" Washington: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I GUESS I AM THE ONLY ONE IN HERE THAT HAS FACED RACISM. I DISAGREE. I MEAN, I RESPECT YOU, I RESPECT EVERYBODY. I DISAGREE. I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP IT IN BECAUSE WORRIES PLAY A LOT WITH HOW WELL PEOPLE OPERATE. WE CAN KEEP -- WE CAN PUT IN THE NEW ONE AND STILL COULD -- COULD STILL NOT DO WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE -- WE DON'T HAVE THAT PIECE THERE THAT WE CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AT. RACISM IS LIVE. IT'S FOR REAL. I HAVE BEEN THROUGH IT. AND IT'S HARD. IT'S HARD. I CAN REMEMBER WHEN I WAS IN SCHOOL, IN HIGH SCHOOL WHERE I DEALT WITH RACISM. WE DIDN'T HAVE A

011LOT. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, WE MADE IT. WE DID THE THINGS WE HAD TO DO BECAUSE WE UNDERSTOOD THE IMPORTANCE OF RESPECTING EVERY PERSON. I AM KIND OF UPSET BECAUSE I ALWAYS HAVE BEEN A PERSON WITH HONESTY AND DEALT WITH PEOPLE IN A POSITIVE WAY. AND I THINK IT IS SO IMPORTANT FOR US TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE CANNOT ELIMINATE THAT PART. SOME THINGS YOU CAN'T ELIMINATE. MAYBE ANOTHER WAY TO PUT IT, I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE WE CAN SIT DOWN AND DO IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY, BUT THIS PART IS IMPORTANT. BECAUSE I AM TELLING YOU, WHEN THEY CLOSE THE SCHOOL IN 1969 AND '70, THEY CLOSED THE SCHOOL BECAUSE WE SAID WE WANTED EQUALITY. WE WANTED EQUALITY, AND THEY CLOSED THE SCHOOL AND SAID WE ARE GOING TO GIVE YOU EQUALITY. I AM GOING TO

012SEND YOU -- I WILL CLOSE BLAKE AND MILTON DOWN AND GIVE YOU EQUALITY. AND THEY CLOSED IT DOWN. AND THEY GAVE US EQUALITY BECAUSE WE HAD THE SAME -- WE WENT TO THE SAME SCHOOLS THEY WENT TO. AND I HATE TO USE THE TERM "THEY" BUT THE WHITES, WE WENT TO THE SAME SCHOOL AND IT WAS DIFFICULT BECAUSE WE USED WORDS THAT THEY COULD CHANGE IT AROUND AND TOTALLY TURN IT AROUND. IT IS SO IMPORTANT FOR US TO NOT FORGET WHERE WE CAME FROM. THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART. I AM IN TEARS. I AM A LITTLE UPSET. I STAYED UP ALL NIGHT -- HALF OF THE NIGHT CONTEMPLATING BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO EVER BREAK THE LAW -- THANK YOU, SWEETHEART. I DON'T EVER WANT TO BREAK THE LAW. SHAKE WASHINGTON DON'T WANT TO

013BREAK THE LAW, BUT WHAT I WANT FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND WE NEED TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT BY PEOPLE AND I JUST HAVE TO APOLOGIZE, PEOPLE, I AM LITERALLY IN TEARS BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN THROUGH ALL OF THIS. A LOT OF YOU HAVE NOT, BUT I HAVE BEEN THROUGH IT. AND I HAVE BEEN THROUGH RACISM -- I HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS WHERE WE COULDN'T GO TO THE REST ROOM BECAUSE WE WERE BLACK. WE COULDN'T DRINK OUT OF THE WATER FOUNTAINS BECAUSE WE WERE BLACK. WE CAN'T GO TO CERTAIN STORES BECAUSE WE WERE BLACK! AND I DON'T WANT THIS TO TURN INTO NO RACE OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, BUT WE GOT TO LOOK AT THIS, PEOPLE. THIS IS CLOSE. WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS. AND SOMETIMES YOU GOT TO GO AGAINST THE SYSTEM.

014EXCUSE ME, I -- Jim Porter: CAN I -- Nadia Combs: THANK YOU, MEMBER WASHINGTON. SUPERINTENDENT DAVIS, YOU WANTED TO COMMENT BACK. Addison Davis: I APPRECIATE MEMBER WASHINGTON AND HIS COMMENTS. UNFORTUNATE THAT ANYBODY WILL BE EXPOSED TO ANY TYPE OF UNDESIRED BEHAVIORS. I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR IT IS ONLY BECAUSE OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION. AND WE HAVE A DUTY IN THIS COMMUNITY TO CONTINUE TO BE ADVOCATES BUT ONLY BASED ON THE LEGAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIS PROCESS. Nadia Combs: THANK YOU, SUPERINTENDENT DAVIS. MEMBER VAUGHN. Jessica Vaughn: THANK YOU. I ANTICIPATE PROBABLY NEEDING TO GET BACK IN THE QUEUE, BECAUSE I HAVE A LOT OF THOUGHTS TO SHARE ABOUT THIS. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK MEMBER WASHINGTON FOR SHARING HIS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AROUND THAT. HAS MORE POWER THAN ANYTHING. THAN ANY OF US CAN SHARE

015TO THIS. BEING A PART OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. DAY YESTERDAY AND HEARING SO MANY PEOPLE FROM OUR COMMUNITY SPEAK ABOUT INSTITUTIONAL RACISM AND THE DIRECTION OF OUR COUNTRY, ESPECIALLY OUR COUNTY, AND THEN GOING TO THE PARADE AND SEEING MEMBER WASHINGTON'S COMMUNITY JUST SO EMBRACE HIM. I WAS ON A FLOAT WITH HIM, AND EVERY SINGLE SECOND I HAD, THERE WERE MEMBERS FROM THE COMMUNITY RECOGNIZING HIM AND CALLING HIM AND SAYING HI. I MEAN HE HAS DONE SUCH A GOOD JOB OF REPRESENTING HIS COMMUNITY. SO, I THINK, MORE THAN ANYONE, HIS THOUGHTS ON THIS ARE IMPORTANT, BUT WHEN WE GET TO THE PART WHERE WE TALK ABOUT LEGALITY. YOU HAVE SAID THAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED MORE CLARITY THAN WHAT WAS IN THIS LETTER SPECIFICALLY TALKING OF VIOLATING THE STATUTE. AND I FEEL UNFORTUNATE AGAIN, AND, AGAIN,

016I WILL SAY THIS PERSONALLY, THAT THE LAWS COMING OUT ARE SO VAGUE THAT WE HAVE TO SPEND A LOT OF OUR TIME ACTING LIKE LAWYERS INSTEAD OF SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS AND PUTTING OUR EFFORTS INTO EDUCATION AND INSTEAD INTERPRETING VERY VAGUE LAWS THAT LAWYERS FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY -- STATE ARE ALL HAVING DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS INTERPRETING THAT BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THE STATUTE SPECIFICALLY, IT IS AIMED AT UNIVERSITY. THE UNIVERSITY LEVEL. I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. AS THE TWO THINGS IT CLARIFIES WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE NOT, YOU KNOW, BRINGING IN -- MAKING PEOPLE FEEL GUILTY WITH RACISM IS SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCTION AND ALSO TRAINING OUR EMPLOYEES. PER THIS POLICY THAT WE HAVE LOOKED AT, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT INDICATES THE WORD "INSTITUTIONAL RACISM" OR THE PURPOSE TALKING ABOUT

017EMBEDDING THAT IN ANY OF OUR INSTRUCTION OR THE WAY WE ARE TRAINING OUR EMPLOYEES. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT VIOLATES THE LAW. ALSO, INSTITUTIONAL RACISM, I PULLED THE DEFINITION OF IT, RIGHT, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IS GOING TO BE IMPORTANT IN THIS. WHAT IS "INSTITUTIONAL RACISM?" USED INTERCHANGEABLY WITH RACISM. IN WIKIPEDIA, PERPETUAL DISCRIMINATION OF RACE BY POLITICAL, ECONOMICAL OR LEGAL INSTITUTIONS AND SYSTEMS. DOESN'T TALK ANYWHERE ABOUT INDIVIDUALS. NOT SAYING THERE IS ONE INDIVIDUAL. IT IS NOT SAYING THERE IS ANY ONE PERSON WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS. IT'S ILLUSTRATING THAT BASED ON LAWS AND POLICIES, WHICH WE CAN'T ERASE OR DENY. WE HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE NAACP BECAUSE WE TOOK SO LONG TO DESEGREGATE OUR SCHOOLS. WE TALK OF RED LINING AND PREDATORY LENDING. ABSOLUTELY NO WAY WE CAN DENY OR ERASE THAT SINCE

018JIM CROW, THERE HAVE BEEN LAWS WHETHER IT IS EDUCATIONALLY, WHETHER IT IS FINANCIALLY, WHETHER IN HOUSING DISTRICTS THAT HAVE BEEN AIMED AT MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES AND INEQUITY. I UNDERSTAND WE SAY WE HAVEN'T HAD PURPOSE. IF WE WANT TO TAKE THE WORD "PURPOSE" OUT OF IT, I THINK EVEN THE SUBSEQUENT PARTS OF THE POLICY WHEN WE STALK OF SYSTEMIC ISSUES ARE ALL INHERENTLY TIED TO INSTITUTIONAL RACISM TO TAKE THAT POLICY OUT OR TAKE THAT WORD OUT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO THE REST OF THE POLICY IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. AGAIN, WHAT I WOULD APPRECIATE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OR ANYONE WHO IS ASKING US TO REVIEW THAT, BECAUSE FROM WHAT I SAW IN THE LETTER AND I WOULD LIKE MONICA OUR CHIEF OF EQUITY AND DIVERSITY WHOSE JOB IS TO HELP US INTERPRET THIS AND

019UNDERSTAND THIS TO GIVE FEEDBACK. MY UNDERSTANDING THEY ASKED US TO READ THE POLICY. IF I MISSED SOME CORRESPONDENCE OR CLARITY FROM THE LAWYERS. GOTTEN ANY SPECIFIC FEEDBACK OF HOW DIRECTLY THIS IS IN VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE THAT I READ. AGAIN, THE STATUTE DOESN'T SAY INSTITUTIONAL RACISM. THIS HERE DOESN'T TALK ABOUT ANY ONE PERSON OR DEMONIZING ANYONE AS FAR AS RACISM. TALKS ABOUT HAVING EQUITY IN OUR -- AND OUR MISSION IN GENERAL TO MAKE SURE OUR STUDENTS OF COLOR GET ACCESS TO THE BEST EDUCATION AND WE HAVE ENVIRONMENTS THAT UPHOLD DIVERSITY AND MAKE THEM FEEL INCLUDED. I THINK THIS IS SHORTSIGHTED. I WOULD APPRECIATE IF WE ARE IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF ANY LAW WITH THIS POLICY SPECIFIC AND CLEAR FEEDBACK FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THAT CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND. BECAUSE YOU HAVE SEVEN BOARD MEMBERS

020WHO WILL SIT HERE AND TELL YOU WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF BREAKING THE LAW. AND HAVE REPEATEDLY OVER AND OVER AGAIN SAID IT IS OUR PRIORITY TO STAY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW. BUT ALSO THE WHOLE REASON WE HAVE SCHOOL BOARDS AND NOT JUST GOVERNED BY STATE STATUTE BY HOME RULE SO WE CAN LEAN INTO OUR COMMUNITIES. THAT IS WHAT THEY ELECTED US FOR, TO REPRESENT THEM BECAUSE HILLSBOROUGH'S PRIORITIES WHEN IT COMES TO EDUCATION MIGHT BE DIFFERENT THAN A SMALLER COUNTY OR A DIFFERENT COUNTY RIGHT. WE HAVE SCHOOL BOARDS TO SET POLICY FOR OUR COMMUNITY. SO IF WE ARE GOING TO BE BYPASSED WHAT WE THINK OUR PRIORITIES ARE AS FAR AS STATE LEGISLATION IS CONCERNED ABOUT EVERY LITTLE THING. WHAT IS THE POINT OF HAVING A SCHOOL BOARD OTHER THAN BEING THE DEPOSITORY OF

021ALL THE FRUSTRATIONS IN THE COMMUNITY WHEN EVERYTHING GOES WRONG. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE GETTING LETTERS TO REVIEW THIS WITHOUT MUCH CLARITY AND AGAIN IF WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY AFTER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE SPOKEN AND I WOULD LIKE OUR CHIEF OF DIVERSITY TO GIVE INPUT ON THIS. THANK YOU. Nadia Combs: THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MEMBER VAUGHN. MEMBER RENDON. Patti Rendon: I WANT TO PAUSE FOR A MOMENT BEFORE I SPEAK. Nadia Combs: OKAY, ME MEMBER HAHN. Stacy Hahn: THANK YOU, CHAIR COMBS. YOU KNOW, I HAD CONVERSATIONS AROUND THIS WITH MR. PORTER. AND, YOU KNOW, THIS -- DOES THIS EFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF THIS POLICY IF THIS PURPOSE STATEMENT IS -- Jim Porter: I DON'T THINK IT DOES. I THINK THE POLICY ITSELF STAYS IN PLACE AND STILL DIRECTS THE SUPERINTENDENT TO DO WHAT THE POLICY SAYS.

022Stacy Hahn: SURE. AND I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF BUSINESSES AND OTHER ENTITIES THAT HAVE A SIMILAR WORDING IN THEIR MISSION STATEMENTS AND THEIR STRATEGIC PLANS AND THEY DON'T REALLY PUT ACTION STEPS TO IT. AND I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS BEING IN HERE OR NOT IS NOT, I DON'T BELIEVE, WILL CHANGE THE WAY WE MOVE FORWARD AS A BOARD OR DISTRICT OF ACTION STEPS TO BE EQUITABLE ACROSS THIS ORGANIZATION. THIS BOARD WON THE CUBE AWARD AROUND EQUITY FOR THE STATE. WE HAVE BEEN VERY COMMITTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE IS EQUITY IN EVERYTHING THAT WE DO. WE LOOK AT THINGS THROUGH THAT LENS. SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T -- I DON'T WANT US TO GET HYPERFOCUSED ON THE WORDS AS MUCH AS OUR ACTIONS. THAT IS WHAT MATTERS. HOW

023WE BEHAVE AND HOW WE DETERMINE HOW -- HOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE TREATED. THOUGH I -- YOU KNOW, SHAKE, YOU KNOW -- YOUR COMPASSION, YOUR EMOTION AROUND THIS IS NOT LOST ON ANY OF US. AND, YOU KNOW, I JUST -- I JUST DON'T WANT US TO CHANGE ANYTHING AND THEN THAT MEAN THAT WE ARE CHANGING OUR INTENTIONS OR OUR ACTIONS. SO I JUST -- YOU KNOW, I WILL GET BACK IN THE QUEUE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO NOT GET -- NOT HAVE WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING GET LOST IN THIS DISCUSSION. I THINK WE HAVE ALL BEEN REALLY COMMITTED TO LOOKING AT THINGS THROUGH AN EQUITABLE LENS WHEN WE ARE DOING -- MAKING DECISIONS IN THIS DISTRICT. AND SO I WILL JUST LEAVE IT THERE FOR NOW. THANK YOU. Nadia Combs: THANK YOU, MEMBER

024HAHN. MEMBER PEREZ? Karen Perez: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBER WASHINGTON, I CAN UNDERSTAND. I WAS BORN IN THE '60s. WHETHER OR NOT I LOOK IT, I WAS BORN IN THE '60s. AND, YOU KNOW, RIDING ON A TRAIN TO GO TO SCHOOL, I WITNESSED MY BROTHER STABBED BECAUSE WE COULDN'T SPEAK ENGLISH. AND THE WORDS THAT RESOUNDED AND CONTINUE WHEN I SEE TREATMENT -- SOME OF TREATMENT THAT I RECEIVE TODAY IS GO BACK TO YOUR COUNTRY. PUERTO RICO IS PART OF THE UNITED STATES. AND WHEN PEOPLE SEE A LATINO OR A BLACK PERSON, THEY STILL CONTINUE TO TREAT US DIFFERENT. AND WHEN I SEE THE DISCIPLINE RATE OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SCHOOLS, I SEE THAT DIFFERENT TREATMENT. WHEN I SEE THE POPULATION OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SCHOOLS, THE BLACK POPULATION IS 46,000. THE LATINO POPULATION IS 84,000 STUDENTS. THIS

025POLICY WAS PASSED BACK IN 2017. THE BOARD MEMBERS WHO VOTED YES FOR IT WAS BOARD MEMBER GRIFFIN, HARRIS, STEWART AND VALDEZ WHO ARE NO LONGER BOARD MEMBERS. THEY MOVED ON TO OTHER POSITIONS. ACTUALLY VOTED NO. AND I FEEL WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT LOW ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT FOR STUDENTS OF COLOR, WE CONTINUE TO EXPERIENCE THAT TODAY IN 2023. I FEEL THAT JUST LIKE YOU, MEMBER VAUGHN, I, TOO, PULLED THE DEFINITION OF "INSTITUTIONAL RACISM." IT REFERS TO UNFAIR POLICIES AND DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES, PARTICULARLY IN INSTITUTIONS OF SCHOOLS AND WORKPLACES. AND ROUTINELY PRODUCED RACIAL LY INEQUITABLE OUTCOMES. THAT IS WHAT WE SEE A LOT IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SCHOOLS. THE WRITING OF POLICIES BECAUSE A LOT OF OUR STUDENTS ARE BLACK AND LATINO STUDENTS RECEIVE THEIR DIPLOMAS OF COMPLETION. WE CAN DO ANYTHING WITH THOSE DIPLOMAS WHEN THEY GRADUATE. JUST A

026PAPER THAT SAYS THEY HAVE MOVED ON AND THEY CAN'T EVEN GET A JOB WITH THOSE PIECES OF PAPER. THIS POLICY EFFECTS OUR POPULATIONS OF COLOR. AND OUR SCHOOLS HERE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY HAVE TO CHANGE OR THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE MUCH TO REGRET. AND WE HAVE MUCH TO OFFER TO RIGHT THE WRONGS THAT WE HAVE DONE HERE. AND WE CAN NOT SIT ON THE SIDELINES AND CONTINUE TO WRITE LINES THROUGH WORDING TO MAKE US FEEL BETTER. INSTITUTIONAL RACISM IS REAL. IT HAPPENS. I FEEL IT. MEMBER WASHINGTON HAS STATED THAT HE FEELS IT. AND JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LOOK LIKE ME OR HIM, DOES NOT GIVE EVERYBODY THE RIGHT TO JUST WRITE A LINE THROUGH IT AND CLAIM IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. Nadia Combs: THANK YOU, MEMBER PEREZ. MEMBER RENDON. Patti Rendon: OVER THE YEARS I HAVE

027WORKED WITH VERY DIVERSE POPULATION. AND I WAS TOLD MANY YEARS AGO BY A PARENT THAT I CAN NEVER UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT PARENT GOES THROUGH. AND I BELIEVE THAT TO BE TRUE BECAUSE I CAN ONLY GO OFF OF THE FEET AND SHOES THAT I HAVE BEEN IN. SO FOR THAT, MR. WASHINGTON, I SINCERELY APOLOGIZE BECAUSE MY ENTIRE LIFE HAS BEEN SPENT ADVOCATING FOR THOSE WHO COULD NOT ADVOCATE FOR THEMSELVES. AND I SINCERELY BELIEVE THAT. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THIS DISTRICT HAS MULTIPLE TIMES AND AGAIN THROUGH THIS POLICY AND THE ACTIONS THAT WE TAKE, THAT WE HAVE PRIORITIZED ALL OF OUR CHI CHILDREN. HOWEVER, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I THINK THERE IS SOME VERY -- YOU KNOW, FIVE YEARS AGO WE WERE IN A DIFFERENT PLACE IN THIS COUNTRY, IN THIS COUNTY, AND SO, LIKE WE SAID,

028FIVE YEARS AGO WE WROTE THIS POLICY. I BELIEVE THE OPTIONS OF THE POLICY BEYOND THE PURPOSE, RIGHT, BECAUSE THE DISCUSSION IS AROUND THE PURPOSE, NOT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLICY BECAUSE THAT IS ANOTHER STEP, RIGHT. THE POLICY WILL JUST BE GIVING A DIRECTION TO THE DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT WILL THEN MAKE PROCEDURES OF HOW THEY WILL FOLLOW THAT DIRECTION. AND SO CONSEQUENTLY, I BELIEVE THE ACTIONS IN THIS POLICY DO DIRECT THE DISTRICT TO CREATE PROCEDURES THAT ARE GOING TO BE GIVING EQUITY TO OUR STUDENTS. PROVIDING FOR DIVERSITY IN OUR SCHOOLS. AND I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP THAT IN MIND. BY REMOVING THE PURPOSE, NOT REMOVING THE PEOPLE, LET ME MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR. REMOVING THE PURPOSE OF THE POLICY -- BECAUSE THE POLICY ITSELF IS A PURPOSE. IT GIVES PURPOSE TO THE DISTRICT ON WHAT

029THEY SHOULD CREATE THEIR PROCEDURES FOR. SO CONSEQUENTLY, JUST REMOVING THE PURPOSE OF THIS PIECE OF PAPER DOES NOT REMOVE THE PURPOSE OF THE ACTIONS WITHIN THE POLICY AND GIVING DIRECTION TO OUR DISTRICT TO CREATE PROCEDURES FOR DIVERSITY AND EQUITY. I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE NOT REMOVING THE PURPOSE OF THE POLICY. BECAUSE THE PURPOSE OF THE POLICY IS THE ACTIONS. THE POLICY IS GIVING THE DISTRICT A PURPOSE TO CREATE PROCEDURES THAT DIRECTLY IMPACT OUR STUDENTS AND OUR SCHOOLS. I DEBATE ON THIS BECAUSE IN ONE SENSE, I BELIEVE THAT THE ACTIONS OF THIS POLICY DO GIVE DIRECTION TO OUR DISTRICT. THEY DO GIVE DIRECTION TO OUR SUPERINTENDENT TO MAKE OUR SCHOOLS EQUAL AND DIVERSE, WITHIN OUR STAFF, OUR PROCEDURES ACROSS THE BOARD. BUT THEN I DON'T SIT IN YOUR SHOES. AND SO

030THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR MYSELF IS, DO WE VOTE ON HAVING THIS REMOVED OR DO WE TAKE THE TIME TO LOOK AT THE ENTIRE POLICY AGAIN. AND I DOEN'T -- I CONCEDE TO MEMBER WASHINGTON AND MEMBER PEREZ BECAUSE, AGAIN, I DON'T SIT IN YOUR SHOES. LIKE I SAID, THE FACT THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE ACTIONS OF THIS POLICY GIVE DIRECTION, WHICH IS WHAT POLICIES SHOULD DO, TO THE DISTRICT AND THEY CREATE A PROCEDURES THAT SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED. I BELIEVE THEY DO. I BELIEVE WE DO. AND I BELIEVE WE MOVING THAT STATEMENT DOESN'T CHANGE THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS AT THIS POINT. Nadia Combs: THANK YOU, MEMBER RENDON. AS WE GET BACK IN THE QUEUE. I HAVE MANY OF YOU WHO WANT TO GET BACK IN THE QUEUE. FOR ME, I FEEL SIMILAR

031-- THAT EVERYONE FEELS THE SAME WAY. FOR ME, I ALSO FEEL THAT WHEN I LOOK AT OUR POLICIES, THAT IS SOMETHING WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT ALL OUR POLICIES. I HAVE FOUR HUGE NOTEBOOKS AT MY HOUSE WITH POLICIES. BIG, HUGE BINDERS. AND IT IS THE WAY WE RUN OUR DISTRICT DAY TO DAY, WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. WHAT IS ASHLEY CAPUCHI DO DOING,VERRA-TIRADO, ABBY. ALL THESE WONDERFUL PEOPLE. THE TASK FORCE THAT MEMBER GRAY CREATED FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS. ALL THESE THINGS THAT REMEMBER DOING DAY TO DAY. I WANT TO DO THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT THINGS SAY. THIS IS REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT. DO I FEEL THAT THIS RACIAL EQUITY POLICY IS IMPERATIVE TO HAVE IT, ABSOLUTELY. BUT THE STEPS BELOW IT TO KNEE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT. WHERE WE STATE TO ELIMINATE SYSTEMATIC DISPARITIES. TO ENSURE SYSTEMATIC EQUITY.

032OUR ENGAGEMENT. OUR PHASE TEAM, WHAT THEY HAVE DONE OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. OUR LEADERSHIP, HOW WE HAVE INCREASED THE NUMBER OF HISPANICS NOW IN THE PRINCIPAL PIPELINE. ALL THOSE STEPS ARE MOST IMPORTANT IN ALL OF THIS. THE TEACHING AND LEARNING, IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING. ALL THE STEPS, ACTION STEPS WE DO DAY TO DAY, THE WAY WE ARE TRAINING OUR PRINCIPALS, THE WAY WE ARE TRAINING OUR STAFF, THE WAY WE ARE TRAINING OUR LEADERSHIP. AT THE END OF THE DAY, NOBODY WILL BE HERE IF WE ARE NOT ABIDING BY THE STATE LAW. IF I HAVE TO AT THE END OF THE DAY -- I HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT IS THE RECOMMENDATION LEGALLY -- LEGALLY, WHAT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION. WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? ARE WE GOING TO SPEND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS LOOKING AT THIS AND

033THE PURPOSE? WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE. I GUESS FOR ME, MR. PORTER, MY BIGGEST QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, IF THIS IS NOT REMOVED. WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? WHAT COULD BE THE CONSEQUENCES OR RESULTS? BECAUSE WE SAW THAT WHAT HAPPENED WHEN WE DID KIND OF GO AGAINST THE DOE WHEN IT CAME TO THE FACE MASKS AND HOW MUCH WE SPENT LEGALLY ON THERE. AND THEN THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT. SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, RIGHT OR WRONG, YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. I HAVE TO FOLLOW THE STATE LAW. SO IT ALL GOES TO ME. I AM LOOKING AT YOUR RECOMMENDATION, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I WANT TO KEEP THIS, BUT IF LEGALLY I AM NOT SUPPOSED TO KEEP THIS, I HAVE TO ABIDE

034BY THE LAW. FOR ME I AM GOING TO HAVE TO SUPPORT WHATEVER THE LAW STATES. I GUESS I BRING IT BACK TO YOU, MR. PORTER, WHAT YOU RECOMMEND AND WHAT TO ABIDE BY THE LAW. Jim Porter: THIS IS A VERY GOOD DISCUSSION AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS. AS I SAID AT THE OUTSET, THE BOARD HAS OPTIONS. WE CAN PUSH BACK. TELL THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THAT WE REVIEWED OUR LAW, WE REVIEWED OUR POLICY AND WE DON'T FEEL THAT IT VIOLATES IT. BUT WE HAVE SEEN HOW THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND MORE IMPORTANTLY THE GOVERNOR HAS ACTED WHEN THEY FEEL LIKE THEY ARE THWARTED. THE BOARD TOOK AN ACTION ABOUT CHARTER SCHOOL RENEWALS. THAT GOT US HAULED IN FRONT OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WITH THE THREAT OF FUNDING BEING WITHHELD. WITH MASKS AND

035OTHER THINGS ASSOCIATED WITH COVID, SAME SORT OF THING. THE STATE ISSUED EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT MEMBER VAUGHN'S POINT WERE NOT CRYSTAL CLEAR. THE BOARD INTERPRETED THEM ONE WAY AND THE STATE CAME BACK AND SAID, NO, YOU ARE WRONG, AND WE ARE GOING TO WITHHOLD MONEY. SINCE THAT TIME THE GOVERNOR HAS ALSO SHOWED -- SHOWED A PROPENSITY TO REMOVE ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM OFFICE THAT HE FEELS ARE NOT -- ARE NOT HONORING THE LAW. SO THAT IS, AS I SAID, THE RISK. WE COULD GO FORWARD AND LOOK AT THE PURPOSE STATEMENT, WHICH WE DID SORT OF BEFORE THIS MEETING. IT DOES SEEM TO BE HUNG UP ON THE TERM "INSTITUTIONAL RACISM." THAT SEEMS TO BE THE TERM THAT CAUSES THE PROBLEM. TO MISS VAUGHN'S POINT AND OTHERS' POINTS, THAT TERM IS NOT IN THE STATUTE. WE CAN STRAIGHT-FACED

036SAYS IT NOT IN THE STATUTE SO WE FEEL WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE. FROM MY EXPERIENCE AND BASED ON WHAT I SEE THROUGHOUT THE STATE THAT WILL NOT CARRY THE DAY FOR THIS BOARD. THE OTHER OPTION IS TO SURGICALLY GO THROUGH THE PURPOSE STATEMENT AND REMOVE THE TERMS "INSTITUTIONAL RACISM." TRY TO FIND ANOTHER TERM THAT IS NOT AS PROBLEMATIC WITH THE STATE BUT THERE ARE STILL RISKS INVOLVED WITH THAT. SO, AGAIN, THE SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION IS ONE THAT WE ALL WORKED ON COLLECTIVELY TOGETHER. IT IS BASED ON NOT ONLY OUR READING OF THE LAW BUT BASED ON OUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE STATE. AS THE BOARD DISCUSSION CONTINUES AND EVOLVES, AGAIN, THE OPTIONS ARE TO TAKE OUT THE WHOLE PURPOSE STATEMENT. LEAVE THE WHOLE PURPOSE STATEMENT THERE. IF YOU WANT US TO LOOK AT SURGICALLY DEALING WITH THE

037PURPOSE STATEMENT. BUT IF YOU -- IF THE TERM "INSTITUTIONAL RACISM" IS IMPORTANT TO THIS BOARD, THAT WILL BE A STICKING POINT AND WE WILL HAVE TO WORK WITH THAT. IF THAT IS THE POSITION OF THE BOARD, WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO DEFEND THAT, BUT THAT IS THE POTENTIAL PROBLEM WITH THE STATE. SO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT, AGAIN, WAS MADE IN COLLABORATION WITH MR. GIBSON AND MYSELF AND THE ENTIRE TEAM. AND IT'S, AGAIN, NOT SOMETHING THAT IS -- THAT ANYONE IS HAPPY ABOUT, BUT I AM GIVING YOU MY ADVICE BASED WHAT WE HAD TO DEAL WITH THE STATE OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. Nadia Combs: THANK YOU, MR. PORTER. I WILL GET EVERYONE BACK IN THE CUE. I THINK THE TITLE ALONE OF THE POLICY RACIAL EQUITY POLICY TELLS YOU EXACTLY WHAT IT IS.

038I MEAN -- IF THAT PURPOSE STATEMENT IS GOING TO IMPACT US. SO LET ME GO AHEAD AND MEMBER --LYNN, MEMBER GRAY. YES? [ INAUDIBLE ] Nadia Combs: I DIDN'T KNOW YOU REQUESTED THAT. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT AT THE TIME. WHEN YOU ARE SPEAKING -- I MEAN WHEN YOU GO BACK AROUND -- WOULD YOU LIKE TO BRING HER UP? I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR WHAT SHE HAD TO SAY. DR. TIRADO, WILL YOU COME UP. Addison Davis: THROUGH THE CHAIR, MONICA HAS BEEN MAGNIFICENT IN THIS PROCESS. AS MR. PORTER SAID, NO ONE IS EXCITED ABOUT THIS AT ALL AND WE APPRECIATE THE RICH HISTORY OF THIS POLICIES, THE AWARDS IDENTIFIED NATIONALLY THROUGH THIS POLICY. BUT OPENLY WITH NEW LANGUAGE WITH HOUSE BILL 7, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE. MONICA CAN

039GIVE YOU A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AND HER LENS ON THE PROCESS ANDER ENGAGEMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY K0E78Z KOMEN THANK YOU, GO AHEAD. THANK YOU TO EVERYONE. I WANT TO NAH SUPERINTENDENT DAVIS FOR ALLOWING ME IN THIS PARTICULAR POSITION AS A MEMBER OF HIS CABINET TO BE ABLE TO -- WE HAVE RIGOROUS DISCUSSIONS. AND I DO PUSH BACK. AND ACTUALLY ADVISED HIM IF I AM ASKED WITH PERMISSION, CAN I SHARE, YOU KNOW. AND HE SAID, YES, THAT IS WHAT I HIRED YOU FOR. SO I WILL SHARE MY PERSPECTIVE. I DO -- WHEN LOOKING AT THE LETTER, IT CERTAINLY DOES SAY THAT THE SECTION MAY NOT -- AND WE ARE ASKED TO REVIEW. I ARGUE -- I COULD ARGUE THAT WE ARE REVIEWING TODAY. THEY DID HIGHLIGHT THE PURPOSE STATEMENT; HOWEVER, I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY DIRECTION

040THAT WE GOT THAT THE INSTITUTIONAL RACISM IS THE ONLY PHRASE IN THE PURPOSE STATEMENT THEY OBJECT TO. IF THAT IS -- IT COULD BE OTHER. STUDENTS OF COLOR COMPARED TO THEIR WHITE PIERCE COULD BE WHAT IS FOUND -- OR A MATTER EVER OPINION WHEN IT RELATES TO THE LAW, IT MAY VIOLATE AND WE ARE ASKING ANYBODY WITH THESE TYPES OF LAWS TO REVIEW. THE MINUTE -- BEFORE WE GOT THE LETTER WE WERE WORKING CLOSELY -- THE OTHER TOPIC IS THE LGBTQ+ GUIDE. REACHED OUT IMMEDIATELY TO CHANCELLOR. I WAS FORTUNATE TO WORK FOR HIM IN THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. AND I HAD REALLY, GOOD, RICH CONVERSATIONS GUIDED US WHAT WE HAD DONE AND WE GOT GOOD FEEDBACK FOR THE LGBTQ+ GUIDE THAT YOU WILL SEE. BUT SILENCE WHEN IT RELATES TO THE RACIAL EQUITY POLICY. SO

041WITH THAT BEING SAID, I BELIEVE, AT THIS TIME, IT IS A LITTLE PREMATURE BECAUSE NO ONE HAS POINTED OUT A DIRECT -- THE DOE HAS NOT SAID WHICH PART THIS VIOLATES. AS A BOARD YOU CAN COME BACK OVER AND OVER AGAIN AS POTENTIAL LANGUAGE WITHIN THE POLICY MAY BE INTERPRETED AS VIOLATING THE LAW. I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE LAW. AND THAT WE SHOULD ALSO BE ENGAGED LEGISLATIVELY THROUGH OUR DELEGATE WHEN WE BELIEVE THERE ARE LAWS THAT DON'T ALLOW OUR DISTRICT OR SUGGEST THAT THERE IS THE LOCAL CONTEXT THAT IS -- THAT DOESN'T MATTER ACROSS THE STATE. FOR HILLSBOROUGH. AND MEMBER WASHINGTON, YOU MOVED ME TO TEARS AS WELL. I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING OF THAT. SOMEONE TELLING THEIR LIVED EXPERIENCE. THAT IS NOT A GUILT YOU LAID ON ME SIR. I WOULD

042FAIL TO BE HUMAN IF THAT WASN'T MY RESPONSE. SO UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN WE ARE -- ALL OF US TELLING OUR STORIES. THE DISABILITY RIGHTS MOVEMENT. WE CAN GO ON AND ON. IF THE CONTEXT IS RESPECTFUL, AND WE ARE NOT PUTTING DOWN ANY PARTICULAR COLLEAGUE, THEN -- IF IT MOVES US, SO BE IT. WE ARE HUMAN. SO I THINK THAT I ALSO WOULD SAYS THERE AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE FOR HILLSBOROUGH WITH -- WE WERE ONE OF THE LAST DISTRICTS ARE NOT ONLY THE STATE OF FLORIDA BUT THE NATION TO FULLY INTEGRATE. SO FOR US, RACIAL -- INSTITUTIONAL RACISM IS SOMETHING THAT A COURT CASE HAD TO FINALLY MANY YEARS AFTER BROWN VERSUS THE BOARD OF EDUCATION WE GOT TO WHAT WAS CALLED A UNITARY STATUS. I THINK THAT WAS IN THE '90s. THIS STATEMENT TO

043ME, PERHAPS IT WOULD BE ADDING EVEN MORE TO IT AND GIVING IT A LOCAL CONTEXT. THIS ISN'T JUST A BROAD RANDOM STATEMENT THAT CAN BE PLOPPED ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES OR ANYWHERE IN FLORIDA. BUT IN FLORIDA, IN HILLSBOROUGH, WE ARE TAKING SERIOUSLY THE -- THE EFFORTS TO INTEGRATE, THE NEED TO INTEGRATE, AND WHAT WE HAVE DONE SINCE THEN TO CONTINUE TO RAISE ACHIEVEMENT FOR ALL GROUPS OF STUDENTS. THANK YOU. Nadia Combs: OKAY. I JUST -- I FEEL LIKE I DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF CLARITY A LITTLE BIT. CAN YOU CLARIFY, DO YOU THINK THIS SHOULD REMAIN OR WHAT DO YOU FEEL -- BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE -- YES, MA'AM, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO CONTINUE REACHING OUT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ED. ASKING FOR SPECIFIC FEEDBACK. A PARTICULAR WORD, PHRASE OR THE WHOLE THING

044AND THEY CHOSE TO PUT THE PURPOSE IN THIS LETTER. AND THEN COME BACK AND DETERMINE IF -- WHERE -- WHAT WE WANT TO DO. Nadia Combs: IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE HAVE TRIED TO ENGAGE WITH THE DOE SEVERAL TIMES. THAT IS MY QUESTION OR CLARITY ON THAT? Addison Davis: YES, MADAM CHAIR, WE HAD MULTIPLE TOUCH POINTS AROUND THIS PARTICULAR -- THIS LETTER TO BE ABLE TO MAKE CERTAIN WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE. AND IN THIS PROCESS, YOU GOT TO UNDERSTAND THAT SOME OF THE RESPONSES ARE -- WHILE THEY HAVE BEEN PARTNERS AND WILLING TO BE PARTNERS, SOME OF THE RESPONSES MAY NOT BE IN DETAIL AS WE WOULD WISH. BUT STILL, BEING ABLE TO LEAN BACK ON THE COLLECTIVE RECOMMENDATION OF MAKING SURE WE DON'T PUT OURSELVES IN A LEGAL SITUATION. BUT IN THE DAY,

045HE WILL CONTINUE TO DO THE WISH OF THE BOARD AND CONTINUE TO SUPPORT CHILDREN. WE HAVE DONE THAT EVERY DAY THROUGH ACADEMICS, THROUGH HIRING PROCESS CEASE, TRAINING. ALL THOSE THINGS. WE HAVE DONE. WE HAVE DONE GREAT THINGS IN THIS ADMINISTRATION AND BOARD TO HELP CHILDREN EVERY DAY. Nadia Combs: MY CONCERN IS THIS LETTER WAS TWO MONTHS OLD -- RIGHT, ALMOST TWO MONTHS OLD AT THIS TIME AND WE HAVE GONE BACK AND FORTH SEVERAL TIMES WITH THE DOE AND WE ARE STILL NOT GETTING THE CLARITY, SO WHAT WOULD WE RECOMMEND LEGALLY AS WELL -- AND WE ARE SPENDING MONTHS ON THIS. AND IN THE MEANTIME, MY CONCERN IS THE DOE IS LOOKING AT US IF WE ARE BREAKING THE POLICY AND BREAKING THE LAW AND COULD COME TO REMOVE US. IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT A

046POSSIBILITY AT THIS TIME? Jim Porter: BASED ON WHAT HAPPENED IN THE LAST TWO YEARS IN THIS STATE, I CAN'T SAY THAT IS NOT A POSSIBILITY. THAT IS WHY I WANT TO BE VERY CRYSTAL CLEAR. YOU ARE GETTING A RECOMMENDATION, AND IT IS YOUR DECISION AND THERE ARE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO YOU. IT IS A QUESTION OF MAKING THOSE OPTIONS -- MAKING THOSE DECISIONS WITH CLEAR EYES AND A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE POTENTIAL RISKS ARE. WHAT MONICA IS SUGGEST SOMETHING NOT OUT OF LINE, BUT THERE ARE STILL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. AND YOU ARE THE ONES AT RISK. AGAIN, YOU NEED TO GO INTO THIS -- THESE DECISIONS WITH CLEAR EYES AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT WITH THE POTENTIAL RISKS ARE. WE WILL DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. WE WILL GO BACK TO THE DOE AND CONTINUE THIS. TO

047YOUR POINT, MADAM CHAIR, DATED NOVEMBER 18. THIS IS JANUARY 17. THEY IDENTIFIED THE PURPOSE STATEMENT. THEY DIDN'T IDENTIFY ANYTHING ELSE IN THE POLICY AND THE TERM "INSTITUTIONAL RACISM." IS ONLY FOUND IN THE PURPOSE STATEMENT. THAT IS PROBABLY AS MUCH CLARITY THAT WE WILL GET FROM THE DOE. IF THE DESIRE OF THE BOARD TO GO BACK AND CONTINUE TO ENGAGE, WE ABSOLUTELY WILL DO THAT. THE MORE TIME THAT PASSES, THE MORE YOUR RISK INCREASES. Nadia Combs: WHAT I WILL DO IS GO BACK INTO THE QUEUE ONE MORE TIME. I WANT TO CLARIFY THIS LETTER -- TOMORROW WILL BE TWO MONTHS. WE HAVE GONE BACK TO THE DOE SEVERAL TIMINGS AND RECEIVED RECOMMENDATIONS FROM BOTH MR. GIBSON, THE SUPERINTENDENT'S ATTORNEY AS WELL AS OUR ATTORNEY THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO REMOVE -- IT DOESN'T

048MEAN THAT LATER ON WE CAN'T GO BACK AND CHANGE SOMETHING OR ADD SOMETHING, BUT WE HAVE ENGAGED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SEVERAL TIMES. I WANTED TO CLARIFY. I AM GOING TO GO BACK THROUGH SO EVERYONE CAN HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK. DURING THAT TIME, IF YOU WANT TO GIVE ME YOUR INTENTION ON HOW YOU SUPPORT. I KNOW MR. PORTER AND I ARE TAKING THAT. GO AHEAD WITH MEMBER GRAY. Lynn Gray: WE WOULD ALL BE HARD-PRESSED NOT TO BE AFFECTED BY THE EMOTION AT AND THE TRUISM, MEMBER WASHINGTON, OF THE ACTUAL RACIST ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE HAPPENED AND ARE OCCURRING CURRENTLY. AND MEMBER PEREZ, AS A RUNNER, I WAS KICKED OFF THE TRACK FOR BEING A WOMAN MANY, MANY TIMES AND CALLED NAMES. I KNOW THE HATE AND THE DISPARITY THAT ONE GROUP CAN PUT ON

049ANOTHER. I HAD IT FOR MANY YEARS AS A -- AS A FEMALE ATHLETE. SO IT IS -- IT IS REAL. ONE OF THE -- AND I AM MORE OF A SOLUTION-BASED. AND I THINK MR. PORTER, YOU PUT IT OUT PRETTY -- PRETTY SUCCINCTLY. WHEN WE LOOK AT THE WORDING, YOU KNOW, AND MONICA BACK THERE, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT MIGHT NOT BE THIS WORD "INSTITUTIONAL RACISM." IT MIGHT BE ANOTHER PART, BUT THE -- WITH THE TALKS THAT I HAD PREVIOUSLY ABOUT THIS TOPIC, I WONDER -- AND I THINK, SHAKE, I WOULD LOVE FOR YOU TO BE PART OF THAT CONVERSATION TO POSSIBLY REWORD -- NOT -- "INSTITUTIONAL RACISM." BUT AS AL FIELDS FROM THE NAACP SAID TO ME ONE TIME, THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO WORD BLACK MATTERS. AND HE SAID, WHY DON'T YOU START USING

050MARGINALIZED TO DESCRIBE. SO PERHAPS USING THAT ANALOGY, WE COULD TAKE MR. PORTER AND BOARD MEMBERS AND SHAKE, I AM PUTTING YOU ON THE FRONT AND CENTER, TO BE PART OF MAYBE THE REWORDING IN A WAY THAT IS COMMISERATE AND RESPECTFUL TO OUR POPULATIONS WHICH WE SERVE. BY THE WAY, MEMBER COMBS AND MEMBER PEREZ AND PATTI, MEMBER RENDON, AND TO YOUR POINT, MEMBER HAHN, WE ABSOLUTELY PAY ATTENTION TO DIVERSITY. I CAN TELL YOU OUR AFRICAN-AMERICAN FORUM SINCE -- THIS IS THREE YEARS, WE HAVE OVER 30 TO 40 MEMBERS. WE ARE DOING THE BRAIN BOWL WHICH HAS CAPTURED ALMOST EVERY HIGH SCHOOL AND MIDDLE SCHOOL -- NOT EVERY, BUT A LOT. AND ALSO DOING THE HISPANIC FORUM CAPTURING 30 OR 40 IN TERMS OF THE REALITY, ADDISON DAVIS, WITH HIS CABINET, OPENING UP WIMAUMA AS A NEW

051HIRING BASE FOR HISPANICS. I CAN GO ON AND ON WITH THE ABSOLUTE ACTIVITIES THAT WE ARE DOING -- THAT WE ARE DOING. IF JUST THIS WORD AND THROW THAT OUT BECAUSE MONICA IS SHARING THERE MIGHT BE ANOTHER WORD. I DON'T KNOW, MR. PORTER, IF WE CAN EVER BE MAKING THIS RIGHT EVEN IF WE DID REWORD IT. SO THAT IS A REALLY DIFFICULT TASK AND THIS IS A QUESTION, MR. DAVIS, SUPERINTENDENT DAVIS, EXCUSE ME AND MR. GIBSON PLANNED PORTER, THAT NEEDS TO BE DIRECTLY ASKED TO THE PERSON -- I KNOW IT IS A LAWYER RIGHT NOW, BUT WE NEED TO ASK HIM. IF WE CHANGED "INSTITUTIONAL RACISM" INTO ANOTHER VERBIAGE OR SUBJECT PREDICATE, WOULD THAT SUFFICE? BECAUSE, YOU SEE, WE HAVE SHAKE HERE WHO IS REAL AND LIVED IT. MEMBER PEREZ AND OUR COMMUNITIES 63% OF

052THE STUDENT BODY OF HISPANICS, 22% OF BLACK. WE HAVE TO ALSO SHOW -- WE HAVE TO SHOW DIGNITY AND RESPECT TO THOSE COMMUNITIES THAT WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION. AND IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE RIGHT NOW FOR US TO TAKE THOSE WORDS; HOWEVER, WE CAN MAYBE WORDSMITH. THAT IS WHAT MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE. JUST TO -- MR. PORTER, TO GO AHEAD AND SURGICALLY LOOK AHEAD OF THE STATEMENTS WITH MONICA, WITH LEGAL, AND ASK, SUPERINTENDENT DAVIS, ASK THEM OR THE INDIVIDUAL IN CHARGE -- I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME. ASK THEM. WHAT -- YOU KNOW, THIS IS OUR BOARD. THIS IS WHERE WE ARE AT. AND PERHAPS WE CAN, MEMBER WASHINGTON, THANK YOU. Nadia Combs: AND I WANT CLARITY ON THIS. HAVE WE NOT ASKED SEVERAL TIMES? Addison Davis: TO THE CHAIR, WE HAD MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS. THIS STARTED ON OCTOBER

05319 AT A STATE BOARD MEETING. AND THEN WITHIN A FEW DAYS WE CHASE IT THROUGH COMMUNICATIONS, THROUGH KRISTIN DAVIS AND MYSELF. AND WE OPENLY -- THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION HAD MORE COMMUNICATION ON THE OCTOBER 28, SAYING THEY WILL WORK THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND THIS IS WHEN THE LETTER CAME IDENTIFIED ON NOVEMBER 18, IT IDENTIFIED -- IT GAVE US A RESPONSE DATE OF DECEMBER 9. AND WE WORKED COLLECTIVELY AND COLLABORATIVELY. HAD COLLABORATIONS. SENT A RESPONSE ON DECEMBER 7. FROM BREAK TO THE ATTORNEY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WHO HAS BEEN REALLY RESPONSIVE AND WILLING TO WORK WITH US. WENT TO TRIAL. SO THIS IS WHERE IT IS KIND -- KIND OF SLOWED DOWN. BUT WE CAN GO BACK AND CIRCLE BACK TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION AND PUSH AND ONE FINAL ASK ABOUT PARTICULAR LANGUAGE AGAINST AND

054SEE IF WE CAN GET ANYTHING OTHER THAN JUST GLOBAL RESPONSES. Nadia Combs: THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU, MR. DAVIS. MEMBER VAUGHN. Jessica Vaughn: THE IRONY IS NOT LOST ON ME. YESTERDAY WE SAT IN A ROOM FULL OF PEOPLE AND CHEERED AND STOOD UP AS THEY TALKED ABOUT THE BRAVERY OF PEOPLE TO STAND UP DURING TIMES LIKE THIS AND DO WHAT IS RIGHT. AND THEN THE NEXT DAY, WE TALK ABOUT CHANGING A POLICY WHERE WE HAD ZERO GUIDANCE AND ZERO CLARITY HOW IT IS BREAKING THE LAW. I UNDERSTAND WE ASKED SEVERAL TIMES FOR CLARITY ON THIS. THE FACT THAT NEVER GIVEN US ANYHOW WE ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW IS SO EXTREMELY PROBLEMATIC. AND IF I LIVE IN A STATE WHERE I WAS ELECTED TO REPRESENT MY COMMUNITY AND I CAN'T GET CLARITY

055FROM MY GOVERNING BODY ON HOW A POLICY THAT WE HAVE WRITTEN THAT WINS AWARDS IS VIOLATING THE LAW THAT THE RESPONSE TO REMOVE ME FROM OFFICE, WE ARE LIVING IN A STATE THAT HAS AN EROSION OF DEMOCRACY AND EXTREMELY -- A BIG PROBLEM. IF WE ARE VIOLATING THE LAW INSTEAD OF GETTING BIG ANSWERS WHEN WE ASK REPEATEDLY, WE SHOULD HAVE CLARITY HOW EXACTLY WE ARE VIOLATING THE LAW. THIS IS LIKE MIRANDA RIGHTS IN SIMPLE LEGAL TERMS. I APPRECIATE, FIRST OF ALL, MY COLLEAGUES TO SAY THEY ARE COMMITTED TO THE PURPOSE OF THIS, THAT SEVEN BOARD MEMBERS SAY THEY ARE COMMITTED TO EQUITY. I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT WHEN WE START TO CHERRY PICK WORDS AND WATER THINGS DOWN, IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE ALL OF THE ENTIRE POLICY, AS WE -- AS WE

056FOUND OUT THROUGH CONVERSATION CAN BE STRICKEN. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT OUR INTENTION IS. IF WE CAN'T USE THE WORD INSTITUTIONAL RACISM, HOW CAN WE EVER TALK ABOUT OR ADDRESS THE SCHOOL TO PRISON PIPELINE WHICH WE TALKED ABOUT SEVERAL TIMES AND HAVE COMMITTED TO ALL OF US WANTING TO TAKE ACTION ON. THAT IS A SIDE EFFECT OF INSTITUTIONAL RACISM. AND YOU START WATERING IT DOWN AND TAKING OUT ONE WORD AND SAYING, WELL, WE ARE COMMITTED. WHAT HAPPENS IS, THEN AS MR. PORTER POINTED OUT, MIGHT BE ANY WORD IN THAT POLICY. WE TAKE OUT THE PURPOSE AND HAVE TO TAKE OUT OTHER WORDS AND BEFORE YOU KNOW IT, OUR EQUITY POLICY IS COMPLETELY GONE. YESTERDAY WE STOOD UP AND ALL CLAPPED AND TALKED ABOUT HOW THERE WERE NUMBERS, COUNTLESS PEOPLE WHO STOOD UP AND DID THE RIGHT

057THING TO SAY THAT EQUITY SHOULD BE -- AND EQUALITY SHOULD BE AT THE FOREFRONT OF EVERYTHING WE DO. AND ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO CARE ABOUT OUR STUDENTS AND OUR CHILDREN AND OUR EMPLOYEES TO SAY, THE STATE HAS KIND OF IDENTIFIED THIS. IT MIGHT BE PROBLEMATIC. THERE -- THEIR WAY OF HANDLING THINGS NOW IS TO REMOVE PEOPLE WHO DON'T EXACTLY -- DO EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAY WHICH AGAIN WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANY CLARITY WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IS TO ME EXTREMELY PROBLEMATIC. IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHERE I STAND, I STAND ON NOT DOING ANYTHING TO THIS POLICY OR MAKING IT MORE CLEAR AND STRONGER. IF I AM IN THE MINORITY OF IT AND WE COME BACK TO REMOVING THE PURPOSE ALL TOGETHER OR WORDSMITHING IT OR MAYBE TAKE OUT THE WORD "PURPOSE" NOT THE

058WORD "INSTITUTIONAL RACISM." AND A PURPOSE OF HOW INSTITUTIONAL RACISM TIES INTO THE REST OF THE PROPERTY. I AM OPEN TO WORDSMITHING IT. BUT ABSOLUTELY NOT WILL I SAY THAT WE QUICKLY -- WE WILL FACE THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN. IF YOU THINK THIS IS THE ONLY TIME WE WILL HAVE UNCERTAINTY IN A LAW THAT THE LEGISLATION IS BRINGING DOWN, IT IS TIME FOR THIS BOARD -- I SAID THIS TWO YEARS AGO -- TO DECIDE IF WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A STAND AND PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY AND FIGHT FOR THE ISSUES THAT THIS COMMUNITY WANTS AT WHATEVER THE RISK IS OR JUST PUPPETS OF WHATEVER THE STATE TELLS US DO. THIS IS OUR DEFINING MOMENT AND ROSA PARK MOMENT THAT GETS USED OVER AND OVER AGAIN. I SAY ABSOLUTELY NOT TOUCHING THIS POLICY, IF ANYTHING MAKING

059IT STRONGER. AND THAT IS MY OPINION. THANK YOU. Nadia Combs: THANK YOU, MEMBER VAUGHN. MEMBER HAHN. Stacy Hahn: THANK YOU, MEMBER COMBS. SO I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S INPUT. YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY AS -- JUST AN IMPORTANT TOPIC EVERY DAY, NOT JUST WHEN WE ARE DISCUSSING SPECIFIC POLICY. DID YOU MENTION THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER PURPOSE STATEMENTS IN OTHER -- IS THERE ANY OTHER POLICY THAT HAVE A PURPOSE STATEMENT? Jim Porter: I BELIEVE MR. GIBSON FOUND ONE OTHER POLICY WITH A PURPOSE STATEMENT. THIS IS NOT DONE IN POLICIES. IT WAS A MODEL AND A NATIONAL MODEL AND THE BOARD CHOSE TO LOOK AT THAT. Stacy Hahn: WE WILL HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT POLICY AND STATEMENT TOO. I WOULD SAY IF THERE IS CONSENSUS AROUND REWRITING IT, WOULD WANT IT TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE DOE FOR REVIEW

060BEFORE IT GETS BROUGHT TO THE WORKSHOP FOR A BOARD VOTE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO KEEP CHASING OUR TAIL. I WANT TO MAKE SURE IF THIS IS GOING TO BE REWRITTEN TO GET IT RIGHT. I THINK IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE PURPOSE STATEMENTS OR NOT PURPOSE STATEMENTS, WE NEED TO HAVE SOME CONTINUITY AROUND THAT AROUND OUR POLICIES. YOU KNOW, I DO AGREE WITH MEMBER COMBS AROUND THE BOOK AND FORTH. IT HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, TWO MONTHS. THEY HAVE BEEN CLEAR, I THINK, IN SOME RESPECTS THAT THEY DON'T -- THAT WE ARE OUT OF COMPLIANCE IN THAT REGARD. AND SO, IT MAY NOT BE WHAT WE WANT TO HEAR, BUT THEY HAVE SAID WE ARE OUT OF COMPLIANCE. I SAID IT LAST WEEK, YOU KNOW, TOOK AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE STATE LAWS, EVEN WHEN

061WE DISAGREE WITH THEM. YOU KNOW, THAT IS WHAT -- THAT IS WHAT GOVERNANCE -- YOU HAVE TO YOU UPHOLD THE LAW, AND, YES, WE HAVE TO REPRESENT OUR CONSTITUENTS AS WELL. THERE IS -- AT TIMES LIKE THIS A REAL BALANCE TO THAT MAKES IT VERY CHALLENGING TO SAY THE LEAST. SO, YOU KNOW, I AM GOING -- I AM GOING TO SUPPORT THE SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION. AND I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM MORE OF MY BOARD MEMBERS AS WE MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU. Nadia Combs: THANK YOU, MEMBER RENDON. Patti Rendon: SO THE ONE QUESTION I HAVE TO BOTH MR. PORTER AND SUPERINTENDENT DAVIS IS, DO WE HAVE A TIME FRAME? Jim Porter: WELL, I JUST ASKED THE SUPERINTENDENT -- Patti Rendon: I DON'T FIND ONE ANYWHERE IN THE LETTER. Jim Porter: A VAGUENESS. BUT DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

062IS MEETING WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT TOMORROW. AND THE LETTER -- THEY NEED SOME REPORT FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT TOMORROW WHAT THE BOARD IS INTENDING TO DO. I THINK AGAIN BASED ON THE CONVERSATION TODAY, I THINK IT WILL BE LEGITIMATE TO SAY THAT THE BOARD IS ACTIVELY REVIEWING THIS. I WILL WORK WITH MISS DAVIS AT LEAST GET A PUBLIC HEARING SET SO WE CAN MAKE CHANGES, IF NECESSARY. I THINK THAT IS THE IMPORTANT PART WITH THE DOE THAT THEY ARE -- LETTING THEM KNOW WE ARE WORKING ON THIS ACTIVELY, BUT THERE IS VIGOROUS DISCUSSION SURROUNDING IT. SO I THINK IT IS A GOOD QUESTION RIGHT NOW. AND I WOULD ASK THE SUPERINTENDENT WHAT HE NEEDS TO BE COMFORTABLE FOR TOMORROW TO REPORT BACK TO THE STATE TO KEEP THIS -- TO KEEP THIS MOVING. KEEP THE PROCESS MOVING

063AND LET THEM KNOW WE ARE ACTIVELY WORKING ON IT. BUT BEFORE WE CAN COME TO AN ACTUAL FINAL SOLUTION. Addison Davis: THROUGH THE CHAIR, TOMORROW, I HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS WHERE WE ARE WITH TEACHER FUNDING. THIS POTENTIALLY COULD COME UP AS PART OF POINT OF CONVERSATION. IF I HAVE A CHANCE TO PULL A SIDEBAR AND ENGAGE WITH THEIR ATTORNEY BEFORE OR AFTER THE MEETING, I WILL, TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW HER TO BE ABLE TO PUT HER EYES ON -- ANY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION OR TO REALLY ISOLATE PARTICULARLY ELEMENTS WITHIN THE POLICY THEY DEEM US TO BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE AND RIGHT NOW THEY -- THROUGH GOING AND WORKING WITH OUR LEGAL, WE HAVE UNPACK IT TO SHOW WHERE WE ARE POTENTIALLY OUT OF COMPLIANCE THROUGH THESE RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT TOMORROW I DEFINITELY, IF

064ASKED, WILL TELL THEM TO CONTINUE TO REVIEW THIS AND SEEK ONGOING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO MOVE FORWARD IN A MANNER THIS BOARD IS WILLING TO BE ABLE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE EVERY DAY RELATING TO STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. Nadia Combs: OKAY, SO WITH THAT BEING SAID -- Patti Rendon: OKAY, WITH THAT BEING SAID ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT AND ACTIVE REPAIRING THE POLICY IS WHAT I AM HEARING FROM YOU, AM I CORRECT? Jim Porter: THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, YES. Patti Rendon: NO TIME FRAME AND NOTHING IN STATUTE THAT SAYS WE HAVE A TIME FRAME TO CHANGE IT. Jim Porter: THEY WANTED AN INITIAL RESPONSE BY DECEMBER 9 WHICH WE COMPLIED WITH AND AFTER THAT NO TIME LINE SET. Addison Davis: EXCUSE ME, FOR THEM TO ASK FOR A RETURN BY THE 9th TELLS ME THAT THEY ARE ACTIVELY WATCHING AND MAKING

065CERTAIN THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE INVOLVED IN TAKING THE RIGHT ACTION TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. AS MR. PORTER SAID, AND I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. I AM AN EDUCATOR. EVERY DAY WE MOVE THIS BACK, THERE HAS POTENTIAL RISK TO IT. Patti Rendon: WITH THAT BEING SAID, I THINK EVERYBODY ON THIS BOARD INCLUDING MISS HAHN, MISS PEREZ, MISS VAUGHN, MISS GRAY, MISS COMBS AND MR. WASHINGTON WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DEMONSTRATE TO EVERY STUDENT, EVERY EMPLOYEE OF THIS DISTRICT THAT WE ARE AWARE OF WEAK TEE WITHIN OUR SCHOOLS AND DISTRICT. WE WANT TO DO THAT THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE. I WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT THIS POLICY IS A DIRECTION OF WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO. WE AS AN ORGANIZATION IS GOING TO REPRESENT. WE SAY THIS IS OUR POLICY AND WHAT WE ARE GOING TO

066DO OUR PROCEDURE HOW WE ARE GOING TO DO THAT INDIVIDUALLY WITHIN OUR DISTRICT. IF WE ARE NOT GOING TO STRIKE -- THESE ARE MY TWO OPTIONS. ONE IS I WOULD EITHER AGREE WITH SUPERINTENDENT DAVIS TO STRIKE THAT POLICY -- SORRY, PURPOSE. PURPOSE. BUT I WANT TO LEAN ON, YOU KNOW, MEMBER WASHINGTON, THAT IF THAT IN SOME WAY WILL DEMONSTRATE TO OUR DISTRICT THAT WE ARE TAKING A WAY FROM ANY MEMBER OF OUR STUDENT BODY OR OUR STAFF, THEN THAT WE THEN TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER AND LOOK AT OUR ENTIRE POLICY MAKE SURE OUR ENTIRE POLICY REMAINS AN EQUITY AMONGST OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT. I WOULD LIKE TO LEAN THAT TO YOU BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE I DON'T HAVE TO GIVE GOOD RECOMMENDATION. Nadia Combs: THANK YOU, MEMBER RENDON. MEMBER SHAKE, YOU ARE NEXT IN THE

067QUEUE ANYWAY. MEMBER SHAKE -- MEMBER WASHINGTON. Henry "Shake" Washington: THAT'S OKAY. YOU CAN CALL ME "SHAKE," NO PROBLEM. MY MAIN CONCERN IS, I DO NOT WANT THIS WATERED DOWN. THAT IS THE KEY. WE DO NOT WANT THIS WATERED DOWN WHEREBY WE ARE NOT GOING TO ABIDE BY THE PROCEDURES AND POLICIES THAT EFFECTS BLACK PEOPLE OR PEOPLE WHO ARE BROWN. -- WE -- I DON'T SEE WHERE THERE IS ANY LAW SAY WE CAN'T KEEP IT, BUT I AM VERY CONCERNED WITH FOLLOWING THE LAW TOO, THE GUIDELINES. BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE. IN FACT WE HAD A HARD TIME DEALING WITH THIS SIMILAR TO CRT. WE HAD A PART OF CRT. I AM A PERSON WHO DOESN'T BREAK THE LAW BUT WANT TO USE REALITY WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH PEOPLE. BECAUSE IT IS SO

068IMPORTANT THAT WE TREAT PEOPLE WITH RESPECT AND ALWAYS DO WHAT IS RIGHT BY PE PEOPLE. I AM A MAN OF SMALL WORDS BUT ACTIONS. I BELIEVE IN GETTING IT DONE. GETTING THE JOB DONE. SO AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED RIGHT NOW, SHAKE WASHINGTON -- AND I CAN SPEAK FOR ME, EVERYBODY HAS A VOTE. EVERY VOTE IN HERE COUNTS. EVERY PERSON HAS THEIR OWN OPINION. I NEVER CONDEMN A PERSON FOR THEIR OPINION. I AM SORRY. MY -- MY FEELING IS AS WE -- WE NEED TO KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS. AND I AM NOT -- BECAUSE I AM A PERSON OF FAITH, THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE YOU VOTE AGAINST ME OR YOU DECIDE NOT TO. BUT I THINK THE WAY IT SHOULD BE BECAUSE WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE INSTITUTION OF

069RACISM THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS. IT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS AND TIMES WHERE WE HIDE AND NOT USE THE WORD. AT THIS PERIOD OF TIME WE NEED TO KEEP IT IN AND WHAT TO DO. I DON'T WANT TO BE PENALIZED BY THE GOVERNOR LIKE THEY DID THE LAST TIME, BECAUSE YOU KNOW THEY CAME IN THE LAST TIME AND THEY NAILED US. SO WE NEED TO COME UP WITH SOME OTHER KIND OF WAY, SUPERINTENDENT. I DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION RIGHT NOW, BUT MAYBE WE NEED TO LOOK AT ALL THE POLICIES OVER AGAIN. YES, SIR? Jim Porter: MAY I INTERJECT JUST TO GET CLARITY FROM THE BOARD. ONE THING I DO FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT, WE NEED TO SET THIS FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND AT LEAST LET THE STATE KNOW THIS WILL BE DISCUSSED

070IN A PUBLIC HEARING CONTEXT FOR A FINAL DECISION. I THINK THERE IS STILL WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. AT THE VERY LEAST COMING OUT OF THIS WORKSHOP NEED TO DIRECT MISS DAVIS TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS. WHAT I WANT SOME CLARITY FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS, IS THE TERM "INSTITUTIONAL RACISM" NONDEBATABLE. TO MISS GRAY'S POINT, CAN THAT BE REWORDED IN SUCH A WAY, BUT OF SUCH IMPORT THAT YOU FEEL YOU CAN'T REMOVE THAT. IF WE HAVE SOME PLAY WITH THAT AND WE CAN NEGOTIATE WITH THE DOE, THAT IS ONE THING. IF YOU FEEL STRONGLY THAT WORD MATTER SO AS MUCH THAT IT CAN NOT BE REMOVED, WE NEED TO KNOW THAT AND WE CAN GO FROM THERE AND WILL INFORM THE SUPERINTENDENT. Nadia Combs: BECAUSE, YOU KNOW -- BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A

071SECOND PART OF THIS AGENDA. AND IS SEEMS LIKE THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE RESOLVED IN THIS MOMENT. IT LOOKS LIKE WE FIRST NEED TO SEE IF THAT TERM IS VERY IMPORTANT TO EACH BOARD MEMBERS AND THEY WANT TO KEEP THAT IN THE POLICY NO MATTER WHAT. Jim Porter: NO MATTER WHAT. Nadia Combs: I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A CONSENSUS OF THAT AND I GUESS IT IS ASKING EACH BOARD MEMBER. Jim Porter: I DON'T WANT TO PUT ANYONE ON THE SPOT. I THINK, AGAIN, TO MOVE FORWARD AND TO MOVE THIS FORWARD, WE NEED TO SHOW SOME ACTION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BY TOMORROW. AND I THINK SETTING THIS FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE DOE TO MAKE SURE WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE

072PLAY, BUT WE NEED TO KNOW -- THE SUPERINTENDENT, D DR. VIRRA-TIRADO, I NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE IS COMFORTABLE TALKING ABOUT. IF SOMETHING IS OFF THE TABLE, THEY ARE OFF THE TABLE. Nadia Combs: GO THROUGH EVERY MEMBER. Jim Porter: IF THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. Nadia Combs: ALL THE COMMENTS AND -- IF WE CAN KEEP IT TO SHORTER COMMENTS. JUST TELL YOU WHERE YOU STAND ON THERE. DO YOU WANT TO REMOVE THAT POLICY COMPLETELY. DO YOU WANT TO WORDSMITH IT AND FINALLY DO THAT TERM NEED TO BE IN THERE OR NOT. I THINK WE WILL KIND OF GO AROUND THE ROOM. I THINK THAT WILL BE THE BEST WAY. AND WE WILL START WITH -- Henry "Shake" Washington: LET ME FINISH. Nadia Combs: I AM SORRY, MEMBER WASHINGTON. Henry "Shake" Washington: I STILL

073HAD SOME TIME. BUT WHAT I WANT TO SAY, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. I THINK THAT. THAT'S REAL IMPORTANT TO LET PEOPLE HAVE INPUT. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT AND MR. PORTER, LIKE YOU SAID, IF THE SUPERINTENDENT HAS TO RESPOND TOMORROW AND JUST SO -- WE WANT TO CONTINUE OR WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO. BECAUSE AT THE VERY LEAST WE CAN'T TAKE ACTION BEFORE A PUBLIC HEARING ANYWAY. GETTING THAT SET -- THAT IS THE MOST WE CAN DO RIGHT NOW. Nadia Combs: THAT WILL PROVIDE US MORE TIME TO REWARD THAT SEVERAL WAYS AND SHOW MEMBERS AND MAYBE COME TO A CONSENSUS WITH SOME REWORDING OF THAT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT WAY OF DOING THAT. MR. GIBSON, MR. PORTER AND SUPERINTENDENT DAVIS, YOU CAN COME TOGETHER AND HAVE

074SEVERAL DRAFTS TO PROVIDE THIS. THE KEY TERM -- IS THAT TERM IMPORTANT TO YOU AND DOES IT NEED TO BE ON THERE. START WITH MEMBER VAUGHN AND JUST GO AROUND. SO, DO YOU WANT TO KEEP THE POLICY AS IS? AND ALSO KEEP THE TERM FROM WHAT I HEARD LAST TIME. I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT AS IS; HOWEVER, IF WE WORK WITH OUR PARTNERS AND OTHER WORDS "SYSTEMIC RACISM" THAT MEANT THE SAME THING AND OUR NAACP PRESIDENT IS HERE AND OTHER PARTNERS IN THE COMMUNITY WHO REPRESENT BLACK COMMUNITIES, HISPANIC COMMUNITIES, MARGINALIZED COMMUNITY, COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, THAT THERE WAS LANGUAGE THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH. OF A PERSON WHO IS NOT A PERSON OF COLOR, I KNOW WHAT MY OPINION IS. IF OUR PARTNERS HAVE SOMETHING DIFFERENT, DEFINITELY OPEN IF WE DON'T WATER IT DOWN AND CHANGE

075IT. IF WE ARE SEMANTICALLY TALKING OF ONE WORD. IF OTHER WORDS THAT KEEP THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT POLICY, I AM OPEN IS ALMOST EVERYTHING PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN FIRST HAND IN THAT. I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT WATERS DOWN THE POLICY. CHANGES THE FACT THAT WHETHER IT IS SYSTEMIC, INSTITUTIONAL. THERE HAVE BEEN RACIST POLICIES THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE MARGINALIZATION OF COMMUNITIES -- ESPECIALLY COMMUNITIES OF COLOR TO MAKE SURE WE ARE IDENTIFYING WAYS TO RESPOND TO THAT AND CREATING EQUITY IN OUR SYSTEMS. WORKING WITHIN OUR PARTNERSHIPS. IF THAT COMES -- I AM HOPE TO THAT. I HOPE THAT -- Nadia Combs: YES, IT DOES. I HATE TO SAY -- WE ARE AT 11:10 AND EVERYBODY WANTS TO LEAVE AT 12, IF WE CAN JUST KIND OF SHORTEN AND JUST TELL US WHAT YOUR FEELING

076IS SO WE CAN ROTATE REAL QUICKLY AND BE BRIEF, THAT WILL BE GREAT. MEMBER HAHN. Stacy Hahn: I GUESS WHEN WE DO HAVE A HEARING, WOULD WE -- WE WOULD HAVE TO BRING FORTH A REVISED POLICY. SO WE HAVE TO TAKE SOME ACTION TODAY. Jim Porter: WE CAN HAVE SEVERAL -- WE CAN HAVE OPTIONS FOR YOU. FOR NOTICE REQUIREMENTS. WE WOULD DO MORE NOTICE THAN NECESSARY TO MAKE SURE THE OPTIONS THAT ARE CONSIDERED ARE NEWEST. Stacy Hahn: I DON'T THINK THAT REMOVING THE PURPOSE STATEMENT WATERS IT DOWN. LIKE MEMBER RENDON SAID, WHAT THE POLICY ITSELF DIRECTS THE STUDENTS AND STAFF WHAT OUR EXPECTATIONS ARE AND HOW THEY OPERATE WITHIN THIS DISTRICT. REMOVING IT AND COMPLYING WITH WHAT THE CITY HAS ASKED AND THEN MOVING FORWARD TO SAY, IF YOU WANT TO RE-CREATE A NEW PURPOSE

077STATEMENT, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE CONVERSATION TODAY AND SUBMIT THAT BACK TO THE STATE FOR REVIEW AND BRING IT FORWARD AT THE HEARING, MIGHT BE A WAY TO KILL TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE. WE ARE COMPLYING TODAY BUT AS A BOARD WE WANT TO REWRITE THE PURPOSE STATEMENT AND BRING IT FORWARD AT THE HEARING. KIND OF BUILD SOME COMPROMISE AROUND THAT AND BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW. EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVEN'T CLEAR, THEY HAVE BEEN CLEAR TO SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW RIGHT NOW. IF WE CONTINUE TO SAY WE ARE STILL WORK ON IT. WE WOULD BE VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND WILL FORTH THE REPERCUSSIONS THAT YOU NAMED. I WOULD SAY REMOVE IT TO NOT BE IN VIOLATION AND THEN COMMIT TO WORKING ON A REVISION AND A

078BRAND-NEW STATEMENT. AND AS MISS RENDON SAID REVIEWING THE ENTIRE POLICY TO BRING IT MORE IN LINE WITH THE BOARD TODAY BECAUSE THIS IS FIVE YEARS OLD. THANK YOU. Nadia Combs: OKAY. THANK YOU, MEMBER PEREZ. JUST GOING TO ROTATE. Karen Perez: I WAS IN THE QUEUE TO SAY SOMETHING. Nadia Combs: THAT IS FINE. YOU CAN ADD BOTH PARTS. AS I SAID, I JUST -- Karen Perez: YOU KNOW -- SUPERINTENDENT, I AM GOING TO SAY THIS. YOU MENTIONED THAT WE WOULD BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE. BUT I DEEM US OUT OF COMPLIANCE WHEN IT COMES TO OUR POPULATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE HURT. HISTORICALLY HURT BY RACISM. BECAUSE HERE -- LIKE I SAID, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SCHOOLS, OUR GREATEST POPULATIONS THAT ARE DISCIPLINED ARE THE BLACK AND LATINO STUDENTS. SO WHEN THIS RACIAL POLICY IS ALREADY

079IN PLACE SINCE 2017, AND TO DATE, THE -- THE LATINO AND BLACK STUDENTS ARE THE ONES WHO CONTINUOUSLY ARE EFFECTED IN OUR SCHOOLS BY BEING DISCIPLINED, EXPELLED, OR SUSPENDED, THIS RACIAL -- THE EQUALITY POLICY STILL IS NOT BEING ENFORCED. SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN -- WHEN WE HAVE THE TERM "INSTITUTIONAL RACISM." I -- I DON'T SEE WHERE PEOPLE EVEN READ THIS. OR IT IS ENFORCED -- AT LEAST BY THE NUMBERS I RECEIVE. AND, YOU KNOW, MEMBER GRAY, I AM SLIGHTLY INSULTED BY THE FACT THAT YOU COMPARED GENDER BIAS TO RACISM. JUST SAYING. SO YOU WANT TO LOOK AND SEE INSTITUTIONAL RACISM. IF THERE IS ANOTHER WORD, I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANOTHER WORD THAT CAN COMPARE TO INSTITUTIONAL RACISM, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. THAT RIGHT THERE SAYS IT ALL. YOU KNOW, WE WERE AT A

080BREAKFAST YESTERDAY MORNING. AND ONE OF OUR STUDENTS FROM HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY GOT UP AND SPOKE. HE TALKED ABOUT MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.'S DREAM. AND HE SAID HE HAD A DREAM, BUT TODAY WE NEED TO BE WOKE. WE NEED TO WAKE UP TO WHAT IS HAPPENING. WE NEED TO WAKE UP. AND I KNOW THAT IS WHAT THE GOVERNOR DOES NOT WANT. BUT THAT IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE -- TO MEMBER VAUGHN'S POINT, HE WANTS EVERYONE TO STAY SLEEP. BUT WE REALLY NEED TO WAKE UP BECAUSE OUR STUDENTS, OUR BLACK AND LATINO STUDENTS ARE THE ONES WHO ARE SUFFERING. Nadia Combs: OKAY, THANK YOU, MEMBER PEREZ. AS OF RIGHT NOW I HAVE MEMBER VAUGHN WHO WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT AND LATER ON WORDSMITH IT. MEMBER HAHN THAT WILL LIKE TO REMOVE IT TEMPORARILY OR CHANGING THE PURPOSE

081AND ALLOWING WITH THE LAW RIGHT NOW. MEMBER PEREZ, YOU WANT TO KEEP IT AS IS. Karen Perez: I WANT TO SEE WHAT THEY HAVE. BECAUSE I REALLY DON'T THINK THEY HAVE ANYTHING THAT COMPARES TO THAT. Nadia Combs: OKAY. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE SOME TYPE OF CONSENSUS AND THE LAST ROUND AND WE GO AROUND. MEMBER RENDON. Patti Rendon: I WOULD CURRENTLY LIKE TO REMOVE THE STATEMENT TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT WE REWRITE THIS POLICY AND REVIEW THE ENTIRE FOLLOW SEE TO HAVE AN INTENT FOR UNDERSTAND OUR POLICY ON EQUITY. I THINK THAT IS A PRIORITY. SO IT HAS BEEN FIVE YEARS AND IT IS TIME FOR THE REVIEW ENTIRE POLICY. Nadia Combs: THANK YOU, MEMBER RENDON. MEMBER WASHINGTON. Henry "Shake" Washington: I WANT TO

082KEEP IT AS IS AND WORK ON IT AS A GROUP AND GET MORE CONSENSUS. MORE PEOPLE INVOLVED AND SEE MAYBE WE COULD CHANGE THE WORDING, BUT I WANT TO KEEP IT AS OF NOW. Nadia Combs: THANK YOU. MEMBER GRAY? Lynn Gray: SORRY, I AGREE WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WOULD ALSO BE VERY MUCH INVOLVED IN A POSITIVE WAY FOR A REWRITTEN POLICY AND BY NO MEANS -- I DON'T LIKE IT INFERRED THAT WATERING DOWN IS EQUIVALENT TO REWORDING. BECAUSE THAT IS NOT -- THAT IS NOT, AT LEAST FOR MY OWN SEPARATE FEELINGS -- THAT IS NOT THE SAME. THAT WE ARE WATERING IT DOWN. SO BIG DIFFERENCE IN MY MIND. THANK YOU. Nadia Combs: OKAY. AND THEN -- THEN FINALLY FOR MY COMMENT AS WELL. I MEAN, I -- I DO -- I AM

083CONCERNED THAT WE ARE NOT ABIDING BY THE LAW. AND I AM CONCERNED OF THE TWO MONTHS. I AM CONCERNED THAT, AS MUCH AS WE WANT TO WORK HERE, I AM CONCERNED OF THE REMOVAL OF BOARD MEMBERS, BECAUSE IT CAN REALLY EASILY HAPPEN. AND I WOULD SAY I THINK THAT -- I WOULD LIKE TO WORDSMITH IT. I DON'T THINK COMPLETELY REMOVING THE PURPOSE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO WORDSMITH THE PURPOSE SO THAT WAY WE ARE MORE IN COMPLIANCE AND HAVE THAT AMERICA AND THEN MOVE FORWARD FROM THAT. OKAY. SO I THINK I HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION. AND THEN WE WILL CONTINUE WITH THAT. WE WILL NOW BEGIN THE SECOND PART OF OUR -- OF OUR SCHOOL BOARD MEETING WITH I IS THE ANALYSIS OF THE -- GO AHEAD -- AND THEN WE WILL GO AHEAD WITH THE

084ANALYSIS. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND BRING IT TO THE LEGAL SERVICES. WE ARE ANALYZING THE LEGAL SERVICES FOR OUR DISTRICT. I AM GOING TO GO AHEAD WITH SUPERINTENDENT DAVIS. I HAD ASKED YOU TO SURVEY YOUR IN-HOUSE AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. AND BEGIN WITH YOU. AND BOARD MEMBERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK NEXT. OKAY. GO AHEAD. SUPERINTENDENT DAVIS, WE WILL START WITH YOU. Addison Davis: YES, MA'AM. Jim Porter: MADAM CHAIR, DR. HAHN REQUESTED CLARIFICATION WHERE WE LANDED RIGHT NOW SO EVERYONE IS ON THE SAME PAGE. Jessica Vaughn: I AM SITTING HERE AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE LANDED. Jim Porter: MY -- WHERE WE LANDED. A COUPLE OF THINGS -- I HAVE BEEN MAKING EYE CONTACT WITH MISS DAVIS. WILL SET A PUBLIC HEARING. THE SUPERINTENDENT WILL REPORT BACK TO THE DOE THAT THE BOARD

085IS ACTIVELY CONSIDERING AND ENGAGE THEIR CONCERN OF OUR RACIAL EQUITY POLICY AND REPORT BACK THAT WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING SET AND WILL BE ADDRESSING IT. WE WILL WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY TO DETERMINE IF THERE IS ANOTHER WORD THAT HAS THE IMPACT AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TERM "INSTITUTIONAL RACISM." AND ALSO AT YOUR REQUEST MAKE A FINAL STAB OF CALLING DOE AND FIND OUT IF THAT'S IT. GOING FORWARD FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING, I WILL WORK WITH MISS DAVIS TO MAKE SURE THE ADVERTISEMENT IS BROAD ENOUGH TO GIVE THIS BOARD A FULL RANGE OF OPPORTUNITIES. THE OPPORTUNITY INCLUDING REMOVING THE ENTIRE STATEMENT, COMING UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE WORD OR SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN. THAT WILL GIVE YOU FULL FLEXIBILITY BY THE TIME THE HEARING IS SET. AND I THINK THAT IS WHERE WE ARE. AND THE PUBLIC

086AMERICA WILL BE DETERMINED WHAT BOARD IS ACTION BY THE BOARD. Jessica Vaughn: WE WILL NOT BE MOVING WHAT IS AT VIOLATION RIGHT NOW? Jim Porter: YOU CAN'T TAKE ANY ACTION PERIOD. Jessica Vaughn: I AM ON THE RECORD I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF BEING IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW. Jim Porter: WE CAN'T DO IT UNLESS IT IS AT A PUBLIC HEARING. YOU CAN'T WAVE A MAGIC WAND AND REMOVE IT TODAY. Jessica Vaughn: TWO DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS FORWARD? Jim Porter: AT LEAST TWO, IF NOT THREE. WE WILL REPORT WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING SET AND THE BOARD WILL TAKE ACTION BASED ON THE DOE GUIDANCE. Addison Davis: THROUGH THE CHAIR, FOR FINAL, THE RECOMMENDATION WILL BE AN OPTION AS WE MOVE FORWARD. I WANT CLARITY. Jim Porter: YOUR RECOMMENDATION, MR. SUPERINTENDENT. YOU HAVE THE FULL AUTHORITY UNDER

087THE LAW TO MAKE WHATEVER RECOMMENDATION YOU THINK IS APPROPRIATE BUT THE FINAL DECISION IS THE BOARD. CONVERSATION WAS GREAT. WE HAD GOOD GUIDANCE. Nadia Combs: FROM WHAT I HEARD, MY SAMRY -- SUMMARY, MEMBER HAHN, RENDON AND MYSELF WOULD WORDSMITH IT AND LOOK AT THAT. AND MEMBER VAUGHN YOU WERE LEANING MAYBE NO AND KAREN, MEMBER PEREZ LEANING TOWARD KEEPING AS IS. AND MEMBER WASHINGTON -- I SAID FOR YOU GUYS TO LOOK AT THE WORDS AND BRING IT BACK -- Nadia Combs: THAT IS WHAT WE WILL DO. HAVE A COUPLE OF DRAFTS. I DON'T THINK WE HAD A CONSENSUS TO REMOVE IT AT ALL. THAT WASN'T A CONSENSUS. WE HAD EITHER DRAFTING A COUPLE OF DRAFTS AND HAVING THE HEARING. WE WILL LOOK AT WHAT THAT RACIAL POLICY LOOKED LIKE AND GOING BACK TO SEE IF WE

088WOULD LOOK AT THE ENTIRE POLICY ALL TOGETHER. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT. THAT WAS THE CLARITY -- THERE WASN'T A CONSENSUS THAT WE WANTED TO KEEP IT AS IS. NOT A CONSENSUS ON THAT. I DIDN'T FEEL THERE WERE FOUR MEMBERS THAT WANTED TO KEEP IT EXACTLY AS IS. WE WILL MOVE FORWARD TO LOOKING AT OTHER WORDING. Jim Porter: THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. Nadia Combs: MY UNDERSTANDING TOO. GREAT. SUPERINTENDENT DAVIS, I THINK WE HAVE A LOT MORE TO DISCUSS ABOUT THIS IT SEEMS LIKE AN ENGAGE THE BOARD QUITE A BIT MORE ON THIS. Addison Davis: TWO THINGS. THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT LEFTER WE ARE WORKING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND PROCEDURAL AND WILL KEEP EACH BOARD MEMBER UPDATED WITH REGARDS TO OUR ACTION ON THAT AND MORE CONVERSATIONS WITH SIDEBAR ON THE

089DOE AND WILL BRING CLARITY TO EACH OF YOU. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE ACCURATE WHAT WE ARE DOING FOR THE BLACK AND BROWN STUDENTS IN THIS COMMUNITY. THIS BOARD AND THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS REALLY MOVED THE NEEDLE IN SO MANY ACADEMIC OUTCOMES, OUTREACH PROCESS, GRADUATION RATES, ACHIEVEMENT GROWTH. IT IS CONTINUOUS. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT -- WE ALL KNOW WHERE WE ARE FROM A DISCIPLINE PERSPECTIVE LAST TWO YEARS NOT LOCALLY FROM HILLSBOROUGH BUT THROUGHOUT THE NATION WITH ASK ANY TEACHER. WE ARE CONTINUING TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN, STAFF AS WELL, TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO WRAP OUR ARMS AROUND THE COMMUNITY THAT EVERYBODY IS FEELING VALUABLE IN THIS PROCESS. THE ANALYTICS WE HAVE SEEN IT AND THE COMMUNITY SEE IT IS TO STR STRIVE TO DO IT AND ELIMINATE. FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE,

090I WAS ASKED THE OTHER DAY TO ENGAGE OUR STAFF MEMBERS AND DETERMINE, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEIR LEGAL NEEDS ARE FROM THIS ORGANIZATION. YOU KNOW, OPENLY COMING IN, IT WAS A QUESTION AND PART OF A REVIEW OF MY 100-DAY PLAN THAT GOT HIJACKED FROM COVID AND EVERYTHING ELSE TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHERE WE ARE FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE. ORGANIZATION THIS SIZE SHOULD HAVE A STAND-ALONE, INTERNAL ATTORNEY THAT IS -- AND AS I PUT IN THE RECOMMENDATION, NOT ONLY AN ATTORNEY, BUT ALSO PARALEGALS, A RECORDS CUSTODIAN, A COMPLIANCE OFFICER AND MAYBE AN ASSISTANT TO HELP WITH THIS PROCESS. DOESN'T NEGATE THE FACT THAT THE WORK DONE WITH OUR CURRENT PARTNERS IN THIS WORK, BUT AFTER ENGAGING OUR CABINET MEMBERS. ENGAGING ACADEMIC SERVICES. AFTER ENGAGING WHETHER IT BE CHARTER, THE CONSENSUS WAS MAYBE WE HAVE LEGAL 24-7,

091YOU KNOW, ACCESSIBILITY ON-SITE TO BE ABLE TO ACTIVELY ENGAGE IN MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS, TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT REVIEW PROCESS AND PARALEGALS FOR US TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENS AND SURROUNDING, YOU NO HE, COUNTIES, NOT ONLY THROUGHOUT THE STATE BUT THROUGHOUT THIS NATION. THE ACCESSIBILITY AND TO BE ABLE TO GO INTO A ROOM AND HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF IS PRICELESS. SO I GAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD. IT IS AT MINIMUM WHAT THE ACTUAL FUNDING COST WILL BE TO BE BUILD A SOMEWHAT LEGAL DIVISION. WITH THAT SAID, IT WOULD BE AN ATTORNEY COST AND COULD BE ON THE LOW SIDE WITH TWO PARAPROFESSIONALS, PARALEGALS. SORRY, PARALEGALS ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD INDEX DOCUMENTS, ANALYZE DOCUMENTS, WRITE REPORTS, DATA ENTRY, RESEARCH CASE LAW FOR ATTORNEY, DRAFT TEMPLATE DONE MDOCK /* -- DOCK MEN STATION.

092AND MITIGATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THROUGH OUR PRACTICE AND IMPLEMENTATION TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO LOOK AT LEGAL AND ETHICAL REGULATIONS TO PARTICULARLY HAVE A CUSTODIAL -- A RECORD CUSTODIAN. RIGHT NOW THAT LIES UNDER COMMUNICATION IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM SHOULD THAT LIE IN THE AREA OF COMMUNICATION. THEIR ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY WILL BE TO PROBLEM SOLVE WITH SCHOOLS, MARKET SCHOOLS, SENSATIONALIZE CONTENT, ADDRESS CONTENT WITH OUR COMMUNITY. KEEP OUR COMMUNITY ACTIVELY ENGAGED AND HAVING AN ASSISTANT TO BE ABLE TO HELP WITH THIS PROCESS. THAT WAS THE FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED. THIS COMMUNITY OF CABINET MEMBERS WERE APPRECIATIVE OF WHAT CURRENT STAFF DOES AS WELL TO HELP US. Nadia Combs: THANK YOU, SUPERINTENDENT DAVIS. RIGHT NOW ONE PERSON IN THE QUEUE. MEMBER GRAY AND THEN MEM MEMBER RENDON. START.WEB GRAY. Lynn Gray: THANK YOU, SUPERINTENDENT DAVIS. I

093WANT TO SAY THAT THE INTENT OF MY CONVERSATION IS NOT NEGATIVELY TO -- TO DISREGARD THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR PART-TIME ATTORNEY WHOM I KNOW EVERY ONE OF US THINK VERY HIGHLY OF HIM. WE DO -- WE LIKE HIM. AND ALL THE EFFECTIVE WORDS. BUT THERE ARE TWO INTENTIONS I WANT TO SHARE THAT IS CRITICAL FOR US AS A FULL-TIME ATTORNEY WITH THE SEVENTH LARGEST DISTRICT IN THE COUNTRY. THE POINT IS, WHEN YOU ARE AT A COMPLIANCE SUCH AS THE ONE WE JUST MENTIONED, THE INSTITUTIONAL RACISM CLAUSE OR YOU ARE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE HUMAN REPRODUCTION. OR OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF THE UPCOMING BILLS THAT ARE HITTING US, WHICH, ONE IS THE ESE BILL THAT IS COMING FORTH, AND ANOTHER ONE IS THE SOCIAL MEDIA. WHICH WILL AFFECT EVERY ONE OF US. THE

094DANGER OF GOING AGAINST THE LAW NOWADAYS, I DON'T AGREE AND NONE OF US DO, WE COULD HAVE A CLASS-ACTION SUIT OR TAKEN OUT OF OFFICE. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY IS THE FISCAL REALITY. IF YOU ADD UP OUR PART-TIME ATTORNEY. SO THAT IS $343,000 THIS YEAR -- EXCUSE ME 2021-'22 YEAR. AND THEN YOU ALSO ADD UP OUR -- WITH JEFF GIBSON WHICH IS $611,000. YOU ARE COMING UP TO ALMOST $1 MILLION PER YEAR. NOW THIS IS IMPORTANT, BECAUSE IT DOES INCLUDE THE FLAT FEE. IT DOES INCLUDE LITIGATION. IT DOES INCLUDE POLICY-MAKING. IT INCLUDES DRAFTING. BUT THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE OF ALL THIS REPRESENTATION IS LITIGATION. THAT IS WHERE WE GET VERY EXPENSIVE QUICKLY. FOR EXAMPLE, THE LITIGATION IN 2019 -- NO IT WAS 2022 CAME UP TO $348,000. IT WAS JUNE 21 TO BE EXACT. FROM FISHER AND

095PHILLIPS. THE OTHER AGENCIES ARE UP TO $1,600,032. GRAY ROBINSON, QINTERO, SCHULTZ, VALDEZ AND MERMAN. LOOK AT ENTIRE SITUATION OF FISCAL AND WE CAN AFFORD AND SAVE MONEY WITH TWO FULL-TIME ATTORNEYS THAT WILL COME UP TO APPROXIMATELY MAYBE $5,00,000 WITH BASED ON INDIVIDUAL POLICIES LIKE WE ARE TALKING RIGHT NOW, WE WOULD HAVE A SAVINGS OF OVER $20,000 WITH TWO FULL-TIME AND TWO PARALEGALS. PERHAPS MY -- MY BACKGROUND IN -- IN FINANCE IS NOT AS STRONG. COULD YOU GO AHEAD AND PUT IT IN A NUTSHELL. NOW THIS CAME FROM SUPERINTENDENT DAVIS SAID THAT -- MISS JOHNSON. [ INAUDIBLE ] Nadia Combs: IF YOU -- JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES BECAUSE -- IF YOU CAN WRAP IT UP MEMBER GRAY. AND I NKNOW -- Lynn Gray: THIS IS FROM THE 2021-'22. BECAUSE THE 2022-'23, WE ONLY HAD TWO

096MONTHS OF INVOICES. Jim Porter: THIS ONE? Lynn Gray: THE 2021-'22. GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS. I WILL MAKE THIS QUICK. IF YOU LOOK AT FISCAL YEAR 2021 -- OH, USING '21-'22. Lynn Gray: 2021 AND 2022. A FULL YEAR. WE LOOK AT 2021 AND 2022. ACKERMAN AND McFARLAND, THEIR COST TOGETHER IS CLOSE TO MILLION $954,000. IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE OTHER ATTORNEYS, $1,692,000. SO THE SAVINGS FROM -- IF WE ELIMINATE ALL THOSE OTHER ATTORNEYS AND HAVE TWO ATTORNEYS PLUS THE McFARLAND AND ACKERMAN, WE WILL SAVE OVER $737,000. NOW THE CORE COST OF BOTH ATTORNEY, McFARLAND AND ACKERMAN BASE COST IS $420,000 EACH FISCAL YEAR. BUT WE HAVE OTHER LITIGATIONS THAT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT IS OVER THEIR CONTRACT AMOUNT THAT IS RUNNING AROUND -- DEPENDING ON THE FISCAL YEAR $534,000 FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR. SO

097WE SPEND $954,000 ON BOTH OF THOSE ATTORNEYS. YOU CAN SEE THE POTENTIAL SAVING OF AN ADDITIONAL $534,000 PLUS THE $737,000 WITH THE OTHER SEVERAL ATTORNEYS THAT THE DISTRICT IS USING OVERALL. Lynn Gray: THAT IS YOUR LEGAL ADHERENCE ALSO? THAT IS CRITICAL RIGHT NOW WITH THE FLORIDA LEGISLATIVE AN ALL THE BILLS. WE MUST HAVE THAT IN-HOUSE ADVICE -- CONSULTING BILL MAKING, BILL CONVERSATIONS. AND PLUS WE SHOULD REALIZE THE SAVINGS. I THINK THAT IS CRITICAL. SO MY ONLY LASTING STATEMENT IS BOARD MEMBERS -- AND I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR FEEDBACK THAT YOU WILL AGREE TO AT LEAST THE PROCESS OF A FULL-TIME ATTORNEY AS SUPERINTENDENT DAVIS RECOMMENDED. AND ALSO, YOU GET A CHANCE TO INTERVIEW THE ATTORNEYS. AND MR. PORTER, OF COURSE, WILL ALSO BE PART OF THAT INTERVIEW PROCESS. AND WE HOPE YOU WOULD BE FOR

098FULL TIME. AND EVERY BOARD MEMBER NEEDS TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. YOU NEED TO -- I NEVER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO VET A BOARD ATTORNEY SINCE 2016. AND I THINK IT IS ONLY FAIR THAT EACH OF YOU HAVE THAT EXPERIENCE AND THOSE QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. SO ENOUGH OF THAT. THANK YOU. Nadia Combs: THANK YOU, MEMBER GRAY. MEMBER RENDON. Patti Rendon: SO FIRST OF ALL, THIS WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION, ALMOST 80 PAGES OF INFORMATION REGARDING OUR LEGAL SERVICES HERE IN OUR DISTRICT. AND SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GIVE AMPLE TIME TO REVIEW THIS PRIOR TO A MEETING. AND BASICALLY, WE GOT IT THE NIGHT BEFORE. BECAUSE WE HAD THE WEEKEND, AND WE GOT IT FRIDAY AFTERNOON. SO THAT IS MY ONE ISSUE. NUMBER ONE, I NEED A CLARIFICATION FROM -- FROM

099FINANCES THAT ALL OF OUR LEGAL SERVICES ARE COMING OUT OF GENERAL REVENUE FUNDS. IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING? YES. Patti Rendon: OKAY, SO THAT IS MY SECOND ISSUE. AGAIN, GOT IT THE NIGHT BEFORE. FRIDAY AFTERNOON AND A THREE-DAY WEEKEND. ALL LEGAL -- NOW MY SECOND QUESTION IS, WHEN IT COMES TO SETTLEMENT, LAND AND PURCHASES, IS THIS JUST THE LEGAL COST OF THOSE OR ARE THEY ENCOMPASSING THE ACTUAL COST OF SETTLEMENT, THE ACTUAL COST OF PURCHASES. ACTUAL COST OF THE LAND CONTRACT -- THAT IS THE LAND CONTRACT AND THE SETTLEMENTS. Patti Rendon: WHAT WE ARE PAYING OUT IS THE LEGAL FEES IN HANDLING IT. IT'S EVERYTHING. Patti Rendon: SO THE PAYING OUT PLUS. SO HOW MUCH OF OUR SETTLEMENT, OUR LAND USE AND OUR PROPERTIES ARE THE LEGAL SERVICES? BECAUSE THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE IN OUR FULL

100DISCUSSION ON HOW MUCH ARE WE REALLY PAYING FOR LEGAL SERVICES IN THAT SECTION. DO WE HAVE THAT NUMBER? Jim Porter: WE WILL GET THAT BREAK OUT. Patti Rendon: I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE BOARD TO UNDERSTAND. NUMBER TWO -- LET ME -- I JUST WANT TO SAY IF YOU LOOK AT -- IF YOU HAVE 2021 AND '22 AND GRAY ROBINSON, $307,000 FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THAT $16,874,000 FOR THE PROPERTY PURCHASE. Patti Rendon: HOLD ON ONE SECOND. LOOKING AT GRAY ROBINSON RIGHT NOW AND LOOKING AT UNDER THE 2021-'22. OPERATIONAL IS PAID OUT TO CAPITAL BECAUSE IT WAS DEALING WITH LAND CAPITAL, RIGHT. SO WE CAN TAKE THAT OUT. IT WAS A CAPITAL PURCHASE OF $16,874,000 WAS THE COST OF THE AUTHORITY. Patti Rendon: THAT WASN'T THE LEGAL PORTION. THE LEGAL PORTION IS THE $307,000. Patti

101Rendon: WHERE IS THAT? UP TOP. Patti Rendon: ON TOP 247,156. ARE YOU ON FISCAL YEAR '21-'22? Patti Rendon: YES, MA'AM. Lynn Gray: I HAVE IT HERE. Nadia Combs: AGAIN, THIS -- THESE MAY BE QUESTIONS THAT YOU NEED TO GET BACK TO US ON, BUT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH TRUE LEGAL SERVICES WE ARE UTILIZING ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO SETTLEMENT AND FOR LEGAL PURPOSES. AND I DON'T THINK WE ACTUALLY NEED THAT COMPLETE NUMBER RIGHT NOW FOR THIS DISCUSSION. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO KEEP IN MIND I WANT ALL OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS TO UNDERSTAND WHEN WE ARE TALKING OF GENERAL REVENUE DOLLARS, TALKING OF OUR TEACHERS' SALARIES. THIS NEEDS TO BE TAKEN FULL CONSIDERATION. I HAD SOME ISSUE THIS WEEKEND WITH A COUPLE OF TEACHERS WITH SOME HOUSING NEEDS. SO I THINK WE

102REALLY NEED TO MAKE SURE WHERE WE ARE SPENDING OUR GENERAL REVENUE DOLLARS. I ALSO WANT TO ASK, YOU KNOW, SUPERINTENDENT DAVIS, WHERE DO THE NUMBERS COME FROM WHEN YOU ARE GIVING AN ESTIMATED COST OF PUTTING TOGETHER A LEGAL TEAM? BECAUSE I DID DO SOME OF THAT RESEARCH OVER THE WEEKEND WITH A MULTIPLE FACETS. AND I THINK IF WE ARE GOING TO CONSIDER IN-HOUSE COUNSEL, IN-HOUSE COUNSEL ALSO NEEDS THE ABILITY TO LITIGATE. I THINK THAT -- IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY IN-HOUSE, THEN THEY NEED TO HAVE SOME -- SOME LITIGATION. I MEAN SOME CASES THAT WE GET, FOR EXAMPLE, GOD FORBID A DEATH OF A STUDENT THAT MAY TAKE AN EXPERTISE OUTSIDE OF OUR BASIC LITIGATION, BUT WE MAY HAVE OTHER SUITS THAT ARE BROUGHT US TO WE ARE NOT GOING TO JUST

103SETTLE BECAUSE THE FEES WOULD BE ASTRONOMICAL WHEN WE ARE HIRING OUT, RIGHT. BUT IF WE HAD AN IN-HOUSE ATTORNEY THEY WOULD BE ON SALARY AND DOESN'T MATTER HOW LONG WE GO AND TRULY LITIGATE SOME CASES. AND TRULY HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY. I WOULD WANT TO KNOW THAT. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I DO BELIEVE THAT THE SALARY RANGE WE WOULD DEFINITELY NEED TO LOOK AT AROUND $200,000. Addison Davis: MADAM CHAIR, I DON'T DISAGREE. THIS IS ON THE LIGHT SIDE. CONVERSATIONS WITH COLLEAGUES AND LOOKING AT SOME OF THE NATIONAL AVERAGES RELATED TO EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES AND DIVISION. I DON'T DISAGREE WHAT IT WOULD PARTICULARLY COST TO BRING A LAWYER TO THE SEVENTH LARGEST SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THE NATION BUT AROUND THE $200,000 RANGE AT MINIMUM. Nadia Combs: RIGHT. AND I THINK MEMBER GRAY IS CORRECT IN THE FACT THAT

104I DON'T THINK WE CAN MAKE A DECISION WITH THE CONCEPT OF AN ATTORNEY. THAT IS THE FIRST ISSUE. BECAUSE EVEN OUR COUNTY ARE ON THE STAFF OF 22 ATTORNEYS HIRED BY THE COUNTY. MAY BE EVEN MORE THAN THAT. BUT I AM GOING TO BE GENEROUS -- ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE. OVER 20 ATTORNEYS IN-HOUSE. THE OTHER THING IS, WE NEED TO CONSIDER THIS PLATFORM AND KNOW WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, $700,000 BECAUSE WE NEED MORE THAN ONE. WE NEED TO CONSIDER A BODY OF A LEGAL DEPARTMENT. WE ALSO NEED TO MAKE SURE THERE IS A SEPARATION BETWEEN THE DISTRICT'S ATTORNEY AND THE BOARD'S ATTORNEY. THAT NEEDS TO BE VERY CLEAR AND CONCISE BECAUSE IT IS TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUES. THE OTHER THING IS I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE CLEAR WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT THE

105COST OF OUR BOARD ATTORNEY, THAT WE UNDERSTAND IT IS NOT JUST A NUMBER. OUR CURRENT BOARD ATTORNEY HAS A FLAT FEE PER MONTH THAT WE PAY HIM. SO DOESN'T MATTER IF WE ALL SEVEN CALL HIM EVERY SINGLE DAY FOR TWO HOURS A DAY OR WE CALL HIM FOR 15 MINUTES A DAY, HIS FLAT RATE IS THE SAME NO MATTER WHAT EVERY MONTH OF THE YEAR. SO WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT WHEN WE TALK OF UNPREDICTABILITY OF OUR BOARD NEEDS. I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. SO, AGAIN, I DON'T THINK WE ARE IN A POSITION TO LOOK AT THIS AS A WHOLE. I THINK THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF A DISCUSSION. I WOULD ALSO SAY IN LOOKING AT OUR POLICIES AND OUR COMPLIANCE THAT -- THAT COMPLIANCE OFFICER IS A GOOD IDEA. BUT IT

106NEEDS TO BE A RISK MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST THAT IS TRAINED IN RISK MANAGEMENT, THAT NOT ONLY LOOKS AT OUR FINANCIAL RISKS, BUT LOOKS AT THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES OF OUR DISTRICT TO SHOW WHERE OUR RISK FACTORS LIE AND MAYBE WE NEED TO CHANGE SOME OF THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO BE LESS RISKY FOR THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF NOT ONLY OUR STUDENTS BUT OUR FACULTY AND A FINANCIAL POINT OF VIEW. SO I THINK THAT IS WHERE I AM AT RIGHT NOW. Nadia Combs: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MEMBER RENDON. MEMBER VAUGHN. Jessica Vaughn: THANK YOU. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THIS INFORMATION COMING TO US AT THE LAST MINUTE TO ILLUSTRATE MEMBER RENDON'S POINT AND THE LACK OF CLARITY AROUND IT. WE SIT THROUGH 20, 30, 40 MINUTES OF STAFF PRESENTATION ON SOMETHING THAT HAS WAY LESS EFFECT

107REGARDING THIS. THIS DOESN'T ANSWER A QUARTER OF MY QUESTIONS. AGAIN, AS MEMBER RENDON BROUGHT UP, THE LAND PURCHASE PRICE WAS INCLUDED IN THE PRICE OF THE LITIGATION FEES WAS VERY CONFUSING AND LOOKS LIKE IT RISES THE FEE. I MEAN, I WOULD EXPECT IF WE HAVE AN ASK ABOUT THIS, THIS WOULD BE THE SOLE TOPIC OF THE WORKSHOP AND BRIEFED BEFOREHAND AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS MULTIPLE PEOPLE ON STAFF AND A GIANT DECISION. AND NO OFFENSE, SENDING US SOMETHING THAT YOU KNOW THERE MIGHT BE A RANGE AND ONLY INCLUDING A LOW PORTION OF IT AND NOT THE FULL RANGE IS SURPRISING AND NOT SOMETHING THAT I AM USED TO SAYING ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE MAKING FINANCIAL DECISIONS. I ALSO DON'T GUESS AGREE WITH MEMBER RENDON. I UNDERSTAND IN THE CONVERSATION LEADING TO THIS THAT

108-- SAFEGUARDING US LEGALLY IS GOING TO BE A PRIORITY, AGAIN, I THINK THAT IS A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE STATE AND CLARITY IN LAWS AND I DON'T THINK HAVING AN IN-HOUSE ATTORNEY WILL GIVE US ANY MORE CLARITY THAN THE LEGAL ASPECT THAT WE ALREADY HAVE. I AM LISTENING TO THE POINT THAT MEMBER RENDON MADE OF POSSIBLE LITIGATION MIGHT BE EASIER. LOOK AT THE OUTLAY OF THE COST, DOESN'T INCLUDE LITIGATION. LITIGATION FEES THAT ARE PART OF THE COURT PROCESSING AND OTHER FEES. THIS DOESN'T INCLUDE LITIGATION JUST THE BASE SALARY AND COMPARING IT WITH THE ENTIRE SCOPE ISN'T ACTUALLY A FAIR EQUATION. DOESN'T GIVE US A FULL IDEA TO SAY FINANCIALLY WHICH IS THE BETTER DECISION, AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ANY SITUATION RIGHT NOW THAT MIGHT RAISE OUR GENERAL FUND EXPENSES WHEN

109WE ARE IN AN IMPASSE WITH OUR TEACHER ASND OUR EMPLOYEES RIGHT NOW SEEM TO BE INSENSITIVE AND ILL TIMED. I AM NOT SAYING THAT WE DON'T NEED TO PRIORITIZE LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF NOT BEING CLEAR AND THE SERIOUS RAMIFICATIONS WE FACE AS BOARD MEMBERS MAKING DECISIONS OF THE CHANGING LAWS, BUT, AGAIN, TO EVEN HAVE THIS CONVERSATION, I WOULD HOPE TO HAVE MORE PREPARATION. MORE TIME TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. MORE ACCESS TO INFORMATION. AND TO HAVE IT FOR AN HOUR AFTER WE GOT THIS WITH ZERO -- I MEAN, WE CAN'T EVEN DECIDE WHICH YEAR WE ARE LOOKING AT FOR THE FINANCIALS I THINK IS JUST EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTING HONESTLY. THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS. Addison Davis: THROUGH THE CHAIR. Nadia Combs: MEMBER DAVIS. Addison Davis: THE ASK FOR ME WAS TO SEND CONTENT RELATED TO CURRENT LANGUAGE AND I WILL

110MAKE CERTAIN THAT IS IN AN EARLIER FASHION BECAUSE WE ARE ALWAYS ON TIME. WE TRY TO BE IN FRONT OF IT BY SEVEN TO TEN DAYS. ALSO WAS -- JUST A STARTING POINT OF A CONVERSATION. MY ASK TODAY HAS NOT BEEN TO BE ABLE TO STAND UP THIS AND USE ANY OF OUR GENERAL FUNDS. I UNDERSTAND THE SENSITIVITY WHERE WE ARE WITH OUR TEACHERS AND IN THAT, IT IS A STARTING POINT IN THE RANGE -- IF YOU HAD TO STAND UP WITH DIVISION, WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE AND A MID-RANGE ON THERE AS WELL. GIVES YOU A LOW END TO A RANGE TO A MID-RANGE TO IDENTIFY WHAT THAT WILL BE. WE UNDERSTAND THERE IS SO MUCH AND YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT RELATED TO LITIGATION. WHEN YOU ADD LITIGATION ON THERE, THE COST OF THAT,

111THE FEES WILL RISE BECAUSE OF THE SPECIALTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. FOR US -- FOR ME I THOUGHT IT WAS AN INITIAL CONVERSATION THE BOARD WAS HAVING RELATED TO ATTORNEYS AND MORE EFFICIENCIES FOR OUR STUDENTS IT SHALL FOR OUR STAFF. IF I MAY MAKE ONE OTHER COMMENT. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT YOU WERE PREPARED TO COME WITH A RECOMMENDATION TODAY AND NO INTRO OF THAT. AM I MISSING THAT IN THE DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU WERE OFFICIALLY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION? Nadia Combs: I DON'T MEAN TO INTERJECT, THE LAST BOARD WORKSHOP I ASKED THE SUPERINTENDENT TO ENGAGE WITH THE STAFF AND THEIR COMMENTS OF WHAT AND COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION, I ASKED FOR THAT WEEK. Jessica Vaughn: I SEE. I WASN'T PREPARED. I DIDN'T KNOW. IT SEEMED LIKE IT WAS ADDED

112LATE. DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU WILL COME WITH A RECOMMENDATION. I AM SORRY, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WAS IN THE TIMELINE OF WHY YOU ARE CLOSING COMMENTS. WE MAKE A LOT OF REQUESTS IN CLOSING COMMENTS THAT WE DON'T HAVE A WORKSHOP IN THE COMING WEEKS. MORE INFORMATION CLARITY. I AM HONESTLY NOT PREPARED WITH THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION TO GIVE ANY RECOMMENDATION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. Addison Davis: YES, MA'AM, THROUGH THE CHAIR. RESPOND TO THAT. MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN GET AS MUCH INFORMATION WE CAN TO EACH BOARD MEMBER SO YOU CAN START THE CONVERSATION IN THIS PROCESS, YES, MA'AM. Nadia Combs: THANK YOU. WE HAVE ABOUT 15 MINUTES LEFT. WE WILL GO AROUND AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. MEMBER VAUGHN HAHN. Stacy Hahn: THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE IT. I AM NOT

113CLEAR WHY THIS IS BEING RUSHED TO TO THIS IT DEGREE. WE RUSHED REDISTRICTING. WE RUSHED REFERENDUM. WE ARE RUSHING BOUNDARIES. AND I FEEL -- I AM A LITTLE TAKEN ABACK THAT THIS IS EVEN ON THE WORKSHOP AGENDA TODAY. YOU MENTION IT CHAIR COMBS IN THE LAST MEETING YOU WANTED A WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS THIS. HERE WE ARE A WEEK LATER. I MADE A REQUEST -- FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE A PROCESS. I DIDN'T SEE A FORM COME THROUGH ADDING THIS TO A WORKSHOP AND THAT IS THE PROCESS WHETHER YOU ARE CHAIR OR MEMBER OF THIS BOARD. I MADE TWO REQUESTS FOR WORKSHOPS. ONE WAS -- I CAN'T REMEMBER HOW LONG AGO ABOUT TECHNOLOGY AND IT GETS PUSHED AND PUSHED AND PUSHED. THE LAST ONE I MADE AROUND THE BOOKS MADE IT BEFORE CHRISTMAS AND NOT HEARD

114UNTIL APRIL, BUT YOU ASKED FROM THE DAIS, DON'T SEND OUT A FORM AND HERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IT WITH INFORMATION GIVEN AT THE LAST MINUTE WITH A RECOMMENDATION -- RECOMMENDATION BEING MADE TODAY. AND -- I HAVE ALL THE SAME CONCERNS. TO SAY THIS IS APPLES TO APPLES GIVEN THE FINANCIALS OF HOW WE ARE OPERATING TODAY AND HOW THIS WOULD CHANGE THAT IS FALSE. THAT IS NOT AN APPLE-TO-APPLES COMPARISON. I WANT JOB DESCRIPTION. A RATIONALE WHY WE NEED TWO PARALEGALS. THIS IS FOR ONE ATTORNEY. I CONSTANTLY HEAR THIS IS THE BUDGET WHAT IT WILL COST US, BUT THEN WHEN THE REALITY OF IT HITS, IT IS WELL, I REALLY CAN'T FIND EVERYBODY TO COME TO THE SEVENTH LARGEST SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR $100,000. THIS ANT EVEN CORRECT. I THINK FOR ME THIS IS ON THE BACK

115TURNER. THE PROCESS OF HOW THIS IS COMING TO US TODAY AND HOW IT IS CIRCUMVENTED ARE AGREED-UPON WAY OF WORK IS -- IS A LITTLE UPSETTING TO ME. SO, YOU KNOW, I WANT -- I THINK -- I CAN'T EVEN CONSIDER HOW TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. Nadia Combs: OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, MEMBER HAHN. MEMBER PEREZ, DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? Karen Perez: I ECHO THE SENTIMENT OF MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBER. THE OPTICS OF THIS IS VERY QUESTIONABLE, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. THE FACT THAT THE WAY THIS WAS PRESENTED, I LOOKED AT IT MYSELF AND AFTER THREE DAYS OF CELEBRATIONS THAT WE WERE OUT, YOU KNOW, THE COMMUNITY, ENGAGED WITH THE COMMUNITY APPEAR A VERY HECTIC WEEKEND AND HAVE TO SIT AND LOOK AT THIS. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY

116NO -- NOTHING TO REALLY HELP EVEN TO FIND WHAT ALL THIS IS. AND HOW EVERYTHING IS PLACED, LIKE, A RUNNING TALLY. IT'S NOT SEPARATED. I ALSO THOUGHT JUST LIKE MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS, THAT EVERYTHING WAS ADDING UP TOGETHER. NOT A SEPARATE TOTAL. AND THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE EXPLAINING THIS TO US. I ALSO -- LIKE I MENTIONED IN THE BEGINNING, THE OPTICS ARE QUESTIONABLE. Nadia Combs: THANK YOU, MEMBER PEREZ. AND THEN -- I WILL SPEAK. AND MR. WASHINGTON. FIRST OF ALL, JUST LIKE ALL OF YOU, YOU KNOW, I GOT ELECTED BECAUSE I AM AN EDUCATOR AND A BUSINESSPERSON. WITHIN COMING INTO THE BOARD, WITHIN A WEEK OR TWO, I WAS ASTOUNDED THAT A $4 BILLION ENTITY OR 3.5 AT THE TIME DID NOT HAVE INHOUSE COUNSEL. THAT HAS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS AND EMPLOYEES

117DIDN'T HAVE ONE. TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. ONE IS THE SUPERINTENDENT HAVING HIS IN-HOUSE ATTORNEY. AND I HEAR OFTEN FROM DEPARTMENTS, FROM AREAS THAT SAY THIS IS VERY DIFFICULT SOMETIMES THAT WE DON'T HAVE SOMEBODY IN-HOUSE AS WELL FOR US, AS WELL FOR ME. HERE WE ARE TODAY DISCUSSING A LETTER THAT WAS TWO MONTHS AGO. EVERYTHING IS SO BOTTLENECKED BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO AN IN-HOUSE ATTORNEY. SO THIS IS NOT A REFERENDUM ON MR. GIBSON OR MR. PORTER. THIS IS ABOUT HOW ARE WE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE. I SAT HERE FOR TWO YEARS AND WAITED TO SEE -- TO SEE. AND I LOOKED. OF THE TOP 30 LARGE DISTRICTS IN THE UNITED STATES, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM HAS IN-HOUSE. OF THOSE, FIVE OF THEM HAPPEN TO BE IN FLORIDA. FOURTH IS DADE COUNTY, BROWARD COUNTY, ORANGE AND

118DUVAL. ALL IN-HOUSE ATTORNEYS. AND I TOO CAN A STEP FURTHER AND I SAID WHAT IS THE ACTUAL COST OF AN IN-HOUSE ATTORNEY. WHAT I HAVE HERE FOR YOU IS THE SALARIES OF FULL-TIME IN-HOUSE SCHOOL BOARD ATTORNEYS FOR THE DISTRICTS AROUND THE STATE OF FLORIDA. AND THIS IS -- THESE ARE IN-HOUSE ATTORNEYS THAT LITIGATE AND ALSO DAY TO DAY DEAL WITH POLICIES. WE LOOK AT POLICIES SITTING IN FOUR FOLDERS AND TAKES WEEKS TO RESPOND TO A LETTER. IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOTAL AMOUNT SPENT FOR -- FOR OUR PART-TIME ATTORNEY IS $177,000. IF YOU ADD THE LITIGATION, YOU ARE LOOKING AT -- WE SPENT LAST YEAR OVER $343,000 FOR SOMEONE WHO WORKS PART-TIME AND AS THE CHAIR -- THIS IS MY SECOND YEAR AS CHAIR OF THE SCHOOL BOARD, I FEEL LIKE WE NEED SOMEONE WHO

119IS LOOKING AT POLICIES CONSTANTLY. I WENT TO THE FLORIDA SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION, I DID TALK TO THE IN-HOUSE ATTORNEY FROM DUVAL -- FROM ORANGE COUNTY AND THEY HAD A WHOLE UPDATE ON THE PARENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS. WHAT LAWS ARE COMING. WHAT POLICIES ARE COMING. I FEEL ILL-EQUIPED. I FEEL LIKE I NEED SOMEONE WHEN I GO INTO ROSAC AT 3:00 IN THE AFTERNOON AND I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT A LETTER OR I FIND OUT THAT I AM GOING TO BE REMOVED FROM THE BOARD BECAUSE I DID NOT TAKE A STATEMENT OUT, THEN I HAVE SOMEONE THAT I CAN TALK TO. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT -- AND THIS IS THE CURRENT CONTRACT FOR 2022. IT HAS THE CURRENT IN-HOUSE ATTORNEY FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD, THEIR NAME AND THEIR FULL SALARY TO IT BE ACCESSIBLE 40 HOURS.

120THESE ARE GENERAL FUND FROM OUR TEACHERS. THESE ARE GENERAL FUNDS THAT WE CAN'T DO THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO THINGS FOR OUR STUDENTS. THE AMOUNT OF LEGAL SERVICES WE ARE SPENDING AND THE INADEQUACY -- BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL THAT -- WHEN I SEE THAT THE TAMPA BAY TIMES A MONTH AGO SAID IT TOOK US A LONG TIME TO RESPOND TO THAT LETTER. AND WE DID NOT GET VERY FAR TODAY AT THE BEGINNING OF OUR MEETING. I STILL FEEL LIKE -- HOW ARE -- HOW WILL YOU LOOK AT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TOMORROW AND HOW MANY MORE DAYS WILL IT TAKE. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW OUR IN-HOUSE ATTORNEY WILL MEET WITH EACH MEMBER NINE TO TEN DURING THAT DAY AND WE WILL LOOK AT THE LETTER AND COME UP WITH A DRAFT. ON WEDNESDAY,

121WE WILL LOOK AT THE DRAFT. IT IS REALLY BEEN BEING EFFICIENCY AND ALSO ABOUT OUR TAXPAYER MONEY. LOOKING AT IN-HOUSE -- WHY ARE 30 OF THE LARGEST DISTRICTS -- THE ONLY IT IS STRICT IN FLORIDA. I LOOKED UP 50 DISTRICTS. ALL HAVE IN-HOUSE. THE ONLY DISTRICT WITH NO IN-HOUSE IS PASCO COUNTY BECAUSE A ELECTED SUPERINTENDENT. WHAT DO THEY KNOW THAT WE DON'T KNOW? ARE WE THAT EFFICIENT WE ARE SPENDING $1 MILLION? AND WE ARE TAKING SO LONG TO RESPOND TO THE DOE? I MEAN, NO, I HAVE WAITED.THIS IS NOT A SURPRISE. I HAVE SAT HERE AND WAITED TWO YEARS AND SEEN THIS INEFFICIENT SYSTEM OF OUR DISTRICT AND HOW TO BE MORE EFFECTIVE. YOU ASKED THE CHARTER SCHOOL. YOU ASK THE CFO. YOU ASK -- ANY DEPARTMENT IN OUR DISTRICT, IF YOU SAY DO YOU

122BELIEVE YOU NEED IN-HOUSE. EVERYBODY SAYS IT. SUPERINTENDENT, THE OTHER DAY YOU SAID I NEEDED SOMEONE TO LOOK OVER THE CONTRACT AND IT TOOK ME A LITTLE WHILE IT FIND A ATTORNEY TO LOOK AT IT. YOU ARE THE SUPERINTENDENT, HOW THE OTHER PEOPLE BENEATH YOU -- IF YOU HAVE A HARD TIME FINDING SOMEONE, HOW IS EVERYBODY ELSE SUPPOSED TO FIND SOMEONE. YOU KNOW, AS I SAID, I KNOW OUR ATTORNEYS HAVE DONE A MAGNIFICENT JOB. NOTHING ABOUT THEM. IT IS THE NEED, THE AMOUNT OF LAWS THAT ARE COMING DOWN FROM THE DOE AND THE AMOUNT OF STATUTES COMING DOWN. WE CAN NOT DO A JOB WITHOUT LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN HOUSE AT OUR DISTRICT OFFICE. PLEASE DO THE RESEARCH. I MEAN I HAD -- MONTHS AGO WHEN MY INTERN WAS HERE, SHE COMPILED ALL THE INFORMATION. I SAT

123HERE WAITING TO SAY TIME IS RIGHT. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE PROTECTING OURSELVES, PROTECTING OUR GENERAL FUND AND MAKING SURE WE ARE AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE. HOW ARE WE THE ONLY DISTRICT IN THE COUNTRY DOING THIS AND WE ARE NOT BEING EFFICIENT. THAT IS WHY IT TAKES TWO MONTHS TO RESPOND TO A LETTER. I MEAN, SO I OBVIOUSLY FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THIS. AS I SAID NOTING TO DO WITH OUR CURRENT -- IT IS THE NEEDS OF OUR DISTRICT. I CAME HERE AS A EDUCATOR AND BUSINESS PERSON AND I AM AGHAST THAT A $4 BILLION ORGANIZATION DOES NOT HAVE IN-HOUSE LEGAL COUNSEL. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN FIND A LEGAL ENTITY IN THIS STATE THAT DOESN'T HAVE THAT WITH THE SIZE THAT WE HAVE. DO WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THIS MORE?

124DO YOU NEED MORE TIME TO REFLECT AND LOOK AND DO RESEARCH AND CHECK MY INFORMATION? ABSOLUTELY. BUT THIS CONVERSATION NEEDS TO BE AT THE FOREFRONT BECAUSE AS WE ARE SITTING HERE, THE DEPARTMENT -- MEMBER VAUGHN, TO YOUR -- TO YOUR DEFENSE, YOU SAID IT IS HOW HARD TO INTERPRET LAWS. IT IS. THAT IS WHY WE NEED SOMEONE CONSTANTLY AVAILABLE. WHEN WHEN OUR LEGAL REPRESENTATION HAS SEVERAL OTHER CLIENTS, YOU KNOW, IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE DON'T HAVE THAT. WILL WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY? Nadia Combs: YES. MEMBER WASHINGTON AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO GO AROUND ONE TIME. MEMBER WASHINGTON. Henry "Shake" Washington: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I AM GOING TO BE VERY SIMPLE. I AM NOT READY FOR THIS. BECAUSE I -- I JUST GOT IT. AND I DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY

125TO LOOK OVER THE THINGS THAT I REALLY NEEDED TO LOOK OVER. THERE IS QUITE A BIT IN HERE TO LOOK OVER. I HAD A DISCUSSION THIS MORNING ABOUT -- YOU KNOW YEARS AGO -- AND MR. PORTER, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP ME ON THIS. YEARS AGO, DIDN'T WE HAVE TO A LITIGATION REPORT WHERE BOARD MEMBERS KNEW? Jim Porter: AND WE CAN PROVIDE THAT. Henry "Shake" Washington: THAT IS SO IMPORTANT TO HAVE A LITIGATION REPORT LIKE WE USED TO HAVE AND HAVE INSIGHT AND WE ARE READY. I WAS A DRIVER'S ED TEACHER AND DON'T WANT TO -- I AM NOT GOOD WITH NUMBERS. YOU ARE A BUSINESSPERSON AND YOU BRING A LOT TO THE TABLE. THAT'S ALL I SAY. THANK YOU. Nadia Combs: I WILL GO AROUND. MEMBER GRAY? Lynn Gray: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

126AND I WILL SAY THIS. I DO HAVE THE INFORMATION. AND I DID DOWNLOAD IT. TO ME, WHEN WE START GETTING LETTER WE ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE AND THIS WOULD BE THE SECOND TIME, I FIND IT VERY -- A CALL TO ACTION. AND WHEN I WAS AT THE FLORIDA SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION, POINT-BLANK, THEY SAID TO KNEE THAT THEY HAVE WONDERED WHY WE DID NOT GET A CLASS-ACTION SUIT YET. BECAUSE WE ARE NOT REPRESENTED IN THE WAY THAT WE MUST BE. THE BILLS ARE -- WE ARE IN CHANGING LEGISLATIVE ENVIRONMENT. NO LONGER WHERE WE CAN GO TO OUR OLD POLICIES AND RELY ON THEM. WE HAVE TO HAVE THEM UPDATED. WE HAVE TO HAVE THEM UNDERSTAND AND BE MATURE WITH OUR DECISION MAKING. WE CAN'T JUST RELY ON GETTING LATE LETTERS AND SAYING WE ARE GOING TO

127BE OKAY. LET'S HAVE A SPECIAL HEARING. -- PUBLIC HEARING, EXCUSE ME. THAT IS NOT PROFESSIONAL. WHAT IS PROFESSIONAL FOR US TO BECOME PROFESSIONAL. NOT REACTIVE BUT PROACTIVE. EDUCATORS. NADIA COMBS, WE ARE EDUCATORS. LEGAL MATTERS, NOT MY EXPERTISE. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE -- THANK YOU, MR. PORTER, MR. GIBSON, THAT IS WHY THEY ARE SO CRI CRITICAL. WHAT WOULD BE -- FOR THE GENERAL FUNDS THAT WE ARE ALL FIGHTING TO HAVE A BETTER HANDLE ON, WHAT WOULD BE BETTER FOR TEACHERS TO HEAR THAT WE CAN SAVE ALMOST $20,000 TO $30,000, MAYBE MORE, AND CAN AT THE SAME TIME HAVE TWO FULL-TIME ATTORNEYS, TWO PARALEGALS, STILL SAVING MONEY FROM OUR GENERAL FUND. WHAT MESSAGE DO WE GIVE TO THE PUBLIC, TO OUR TBT FRIENDS THAT WE ARE WONDERING -- RIGHT NOW SCRATCHING OUR HEADS. LEARNING THAT WE

128ARE SPENDING A MILLION -- YES, PATTI RENDON, THAT IS FOR EXACT LEGAL SERVICES FROM JEFF AND JIM PORTER. THAT IS LITIGATION, FLAT FEE, MONTHLY FEE INCLUDED. WHAT MESSAGE ARE WE SPENDING TO THE PUBLIC THAT WE ARE WILLING TO SPEND MORE, GET LESS, GET OUT OF COMPLIANCE LETTERS, NOT BE ABLE TO RETURN THEM FOR TWO MONTHS. AND GUESS IS WHAT. DOES IT MAKE US LOOK LIKE? THOSE IMPORTANT MATTERS LIKE RACIAL EQUITY, DISCRIMINATION, POLICY, THOSE ARE SO IMPORTANT. AND WE NEED TO BE EDUCATED. WE NEED TO HAVE THE VOCABULARY, AND WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO GIVE ARTICULATELY WHAT RATION MALL IN WE HAVE TO NOT GIVE LEGAL COVERAGE. MR. DAVIS, SUPERINTENDENT DAVIS, HOW DARE US. YOU REPRESENT OUR DISTRICT. HOW DARE US HAVE A DISTRICT THAT MIGHT BE IN PERIL THAT OUR SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS CAN

129VERY MUCH BE REMOVED BECAUSE WE ARE NOT FULLY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ARE GETTING LETTERS -- THANK YOU, MEMBER COMBS, I DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE TWO MONTHS LATE -- NOT ON THE NOVEMBER 19 BUT THE ONE -- HOW MANY OF YOU SPEND TIME WITH MR. PORTER EVERY DAY? 13,250 A MONTH. I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MUCH TIME -- WE NEED TO BE TRAINED TO DO SO. WE NEED -- IT IS PART OF EDUCATION. WE NEED TO BE FULFILLED WITH THE LEGAL INFORMATION SO WE CAN MAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS. SO I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT IS A RECOMMENDATION. I WILL CONCLUDE, MEMBER COMBS, OR NOT, MR. DAVIS. BUT I WANT IT DISTRICT PROTECTED. I WANT OUR BOARD MEMBERS PROTECTED. I WANT US TO BE IN FRONT OF OUR STUDENTS AND COMMUNITIES AND BE LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE AND RESPONSIVE.

130THANK YOU. KOMEN THANK YOU. IT IS JUST 12:00. MEMBERS, IF YOU DON'T MIND US EXTENDING IT FOR ABOUT 15 MINUTES IF NOBODY -- IF EVERYBODY IS OKAY WITH THAT AND GO AROUND AND MEMBER VAUGHN. Jessica Vaughn: THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE PASSION OF MEMBER COMBS AND MEMBER GRAY IN REGARDS TO WANTING TO BE PROTECTED. BUT I SEE SEVERAL DIFFERENT INSTANCES HERE. FIRST OF ALL, WE GOT DONE DISCUSSING SOMETHING WHERE OUR ATTORNEY GAVE A RECOMMENDATION. I DON'T KNOW WHERE LEGAL IN-HOUSE WILL DO DIFFERENTLY. THEY EERED ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION. THIS BOARD DECIDED -- MAJORITY OF THE BOARD SAID IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW IS, WE WILL TAKE OUR DIRECTION FROM TALLAHASSEE. IF THEY HAVE CONCERNS OF ANYTHING REGARDLESS OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW AND IF WE CAN WE

131BROKE IT, WE WILL BE OF THE DISCUSSION. I DON'T KNOW WHERE AN IN-HOUSE ATTORNEY ADVICE WILL CHANGE THAT. I AM CONFUSED. I AM HEARING ABOUT ACCESS TO THE ATTORNEYS. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR STAFF. IF THERE IS AN ISSUE OF STAFF AND THEY HAVE CONCERNS OF THE REPRESENTATION THEY ARE GETTING. I WOULD LIKE CLARITY WHAT EXACTLY THAT LOOKS LIKE OPPOSED TO VAGUE COMMENTS ABOUT THAT. AND IS THAT SOMETHING WE NEED TO GO IN-HOUSE FOR OR SOMETHING WE NEED TO CHANGE ATTORNEYS FOR. I THINK AUTOMATICALLY SAYING THAT THE SOLUTION IS TO GET A IN-HOUSE ATTORNEY DOESN'T NECESSARILY RESOLVE THE PROBLEMS BECAUSE -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT. THE CONVERSATIONS FROM THE BOARD NOT WHETHER WE NEED A IN-HOUSE ATTORNEY BUT THE PROCESS AND THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION TO MAKE THE DECISION. THIS MAY BE SOMETHING YOU HAVE

132BEEN TALKING ABOUT TWO YEARS AND APPALLED ABOUT AND MADE A CLOSING COMMENT HERE AND THERE AND DOESN'T RESONATE ACROSS THE BOARD. I AM HEARING THAT THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION AND THE TIME FRAME WE HAD TO PROCESS IS WASN'T ADEQUATE TO HAVE A FULL-FLEDGED DISCUSSION AND NOT NECESSARILY A DISAGREEMENT OF THE POINTS THAT BOARD MEMBERS. I HEAR THE CONVERSATION OF HOW MUCH MONEY THIS IS COSTING US. I HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT -- AND I HEAR NUMBERS THROWN OUT. I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED A PRESENTATION FROM OUR FO AND THE FINANCIALS. AND OOPGS COMPARED TO OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE COUNTRY ISN'T FAIR. WE ALTHOUGH WE ARE ONE OF THE LEAST FUNDED AND EXTREME FINANCIAL PROBLEMS. I AM SURE IN OTHER 30 STATES, THEY PAY THEIR TEACHER MORE BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HIGHER PER PUPIL SPENDING. WE HAVE TO

133WORK IN THE CONFINES OF WHAT WE HAVE, WHILE I HEAR YOU SAY WE ARE ONLY ONE OF THE DISTRICTS BUT A ONLY DISTRICT THAT IS IT NOT PASS A REFERENDUM. TO OUTSOURCE AND PRIORITIZE THESE THINGS. I THINK COMPARING US TO OTHER DISTRICTS AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR MOTIVATION AND WE WANT TO BE AS EQUAL AS OUR PEERS WHEN IT COMES TO IMPORTANT MATTERS LIKE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR ONE OF THE ONLY DISTRICTS IN A FINANCIAL SITUATION WHERE WE DEPLETED OUR RESERVES SO MUCH. LOOKING AT STATE TAKING OVER AND THE FACT WE DIDN'T PASS OUR REFERENDUM. EVEN IF IT MAKES THE MOST SENSE, IF WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO DO IT AND COSTING THE FACT WE CAN'T PAY OUR TEACHERS WHAT OTHER COUNTRIES ARE PAYING WHILE THEY CAN LEAVE US TO GO TO

134OTHER COUNTIES THAT ARE PRIORITIZE IT. IT NEEDS TO BE PART OF THE CONVERSATION. I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE PASSIONATE AND I HAVEN'T HAD THAT CLEARLY EXPLAINED TO ME. I NEED TO MAKE IT CLEAR FOR ME -- NOT SPEAKING FOR MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS -- NOT I AM COMPLETELY OPPOSED BUT I HAVEN'T HAD ENOUGH INFORMATION OR UNDERSTANDING TO CLEARLY DISCUSS IT. I HOPE THAT PROVIDES CLARITY. Nadia Combs: THANK YOU, MEMBER VAUGHN. MEMBER HAHN. Stacy Hahn: THANK YOU, MEMBER COMBS. YOU TOUCHED ON A LOT OF MY SAME CONCERNS AND YOU SAID IT SO ELOQUENTLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY. AND I LIKE WHEN YOU SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, MEMBER COMBS HAS BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS FOR TWO YEARS. SOME OF US HAVE NOT. SO YOUR PASSION AND NOW MEMBER GRAY'S PASSION AROUND THIS ISSUE IS VERY CLEAR. AGAIN, THOUGH, IT'S --

135I FEEL LIKE -- LIKE A LOT OF OUR BIGGER ISSUES. IT IS A RUSH. EVERYTHING IS AN EMERGENCY. FOR TWO YEARS WE SHOULD HAVE WORK SHOPS LEADING UP TO THIS. THAT IS IN THE REAR VIEW, AND I HAVE ISSUES OF THE PROCESS OF PROCEDURES THAT WE GOT TO THIS MEETING TODAY THAT WE WILL DISCUSS IN DETAIL DURING OUR RETREAT BECAUSE THE WAY OF WORK IS THE WAY OF WORK. IT FRUSTRATES ME. I A RATIONALE AROUND THIS. A CLEAR RATIONALE WHY WE NEED THE STAFF THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING. THAT IS A LOT OF STAFF. THIS ISN'T JUST A COUPLE OF ATTORNEYS. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SUPPORT ST STAFF. I NEED JOB DESCRIPTIONS AROUND THAT, RULES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND I ALSO THINK THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS. OUR CFO SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN EVERY SINGLE STEP OF THIS. IF

136YOU ARE PRESENTING THE CONTRACTS, THERE AWED TO BE A FINANCIAL SPREADHEAT IS AROUND THAT SHOWS THE DIFFERENT LAYERS OF COST. NOT JUST ONE OVERALL COST OR THE LITIGATION COST BUT ALL THE COSTS THAT COME UP. SO WE CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN HAVING THE INHOUSE AND OUT OF HOUSE. I AM IN THE IN A POSITION TO SAY I AM FOR OR AGAINST. I AM OPEN TO HAVING THE DISCUSSION. I UNDERSTAND THERE MAY BE A NEED AND I WANT TO EXAMINE THAT TO KIND OF GET UP TO SPEED WHERE MEMBER GRAY AND MEMBER COMBS ARE. THIS DOES SEEM A LITTLE PREMA CHAIR TO GIVE A RECOMMENDATION WHEN ALL THE INFORMATION YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE YET. AND I THERE IS BIT OF A WAY TO GO. I THINK WE HAVE BEEN OPERATING, YOU KNOW. IT IS NOT

137STOPPING OUR DAY TO DAY IN HOW WE ARE, YOU KNOW, OPERATING WITHIN THE LEGAL CONFINES OF WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO, BUT -- BUT TO MEMBER VAUGHN'S POINT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN ONLY DO WHAT WE CAN DO WITH WHAT WE HAVE. AND WE HAVE A LOT OF OTHER SPENDING IS -- AND EXPENDITURES THAT COME OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND. OF COURSE WE HAVE THE TEACHERS SALARIES AND OTHER EMPLOYEE SALARIES. AND WE SEE THEM COME TO EVERY BOARD MEETINGS. WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT COME TO OUR MEETINGS AROUND THE BOUNDARY CHANGES AND HOW THAT IS IMPACTING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES AND WE ARE SAYING, WELL, THERE ARE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR THOSE DECISIONS. I DO AGREE IT IS A LITTLE INCENTIVE AT THIS TIME THAT WE GOT TO RUSH TO A DECISION. THAT DOESN'T SAY THAT WE CAN'T

138HAVE A CONVERSATION, BUT UNTIL SOME OTHER THINGS ARE FINALIZED I THINK WE NEED TO BE SENSITIVE TO THAT. AND I THINK WE CAN MAYBE UTILIZE OUR LEGAL TEAM THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE AND BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR ON OUR EXPECTATIONS SO WE CAN UTILIZE THEM TO THE FULLEST EXTENT TO SUPPORT THE WORK WE ARE DOING. UNTIL WE FINALIZE SOME OF THESE OTHER SITUATIONS. BUT, AGAIN, OPEN TO CONTINUING THIS DISCUSSION. I THINK MAYBE IF WE ALL KIND OF PUT OUR REQUESTS IN TO SUPERINTENDENT ON THE EXPECTATION OF THE AMOUNT OF DATA WE WANT TO SEE BUT WHEN WE COME TO A WORKSHOP AROUND IS THIS, ALL HAVE -- MOISTURE DIFFERENCE REQUESTS AND HAVE A NICE CLEAR PICTURE OF WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT. I AM HAPPY TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION, THOUGH I DO WANT IT

139TO FOLLOW A WAY OF WORK. AND I -- I DO ALSO NEED MORE -- MORE INFORMATION AND MORE TIME TO DIGEST IT. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE TIME. Nadia Combs: THANK YOU, MEMBER HAHN. MEMBER PEREZ. Karen Perez: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. SO ONE PERSON'S EXPERIENCE MIGHT NOT BE OTHER PERSON'S EXPERIENCES. I KNOW MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN THAT, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD ATTORNEY HAS ALWAYS BEEN AVAILABLE WHENEVER I PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL. AND IF HE IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THAT MINUTE, HE RETURNS MY CALL. BUT PROVIDING NAMES OF FOLKS WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TYPE OF CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT THEY HAVE. JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE HIRED ON, WE DON'T KNOW -- YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAVE SOME TYPE OF AGREEMENT. PROVIDING US NAMES AND SALARIES, THEREFORE, DOES NOT MAKE IT A VARIETY FOR US. AND YOU

140KNOW, IT DOESN'T. YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE -- THEY MIGHT HAVE AN AGREEMENT OR SOMETHING GOING ON WITH THEM. AND WE -- THIS -- WE ARE THE 7th LARGEST WHO ARE -- WE ARE JUST COMING OUT OF A -- OF A MAJOR FINANCIAL ISSUE. WE WERE 350 MILLION IN THE. -- THREE YEARS $750 MILLION IN THE HOLE AND WE ARE JUST COMING ABOVE WATER. FOR TO YOU SAY YOU HAVE BEEN THINKING OF THIS FOR TWO YEARS NOW AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THROWING THIS ON OUR LAP ON FRIDAY. AND I JUST -- I JUST FEEL THAT IT IS RUSHED. I FEEL THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS VERY ILL PROVIDED. AND, YOU KNOW, NOT BEING ABLE TO MAKE DECISION FROM THE -- FROM THE MATERIAL PROVIDED TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. BUT EVERYONE'S LENS IS DIFFERENT AND

141MINE IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM YOURS. Nadia Combs: THANK YOU. MEMBER RENDON. Patti Rendon: I WILL BE VERY HONEST WITH MY STATEMENTS TODAY AND QUITE FRANKLY I AM OFFENDED THAT THE FACT THAT THE INFORMATION WE ARE LOOKING AT IN THIS BOOKLET IS INFORMATION I REQUESTED FRIDAY MORNING. AND YOU AS THE CHAIR COME TO THIS MEETING SAYING THAT YOU REQUESTED THIS BOARD MEETING WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS OF THE REST OF THE SEVEN MEMBERS. SINCE I HAVE BEEN ON THE BOARD, I HAD MY HAND SLAPPED TELLING ME A WAY OF WORK. AND YET THE CHAIR DID NOT FOLLOW THAT. AND I AM OFFENDED BY THAT. BECAUSE YOU COME WITH INFORMATION AND DON'T GIVE THE REST OF US THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET OUR OWN INFORMATION, OR GATHER THE FACTS. SO WE COME LOOKING COMPETENT AND PREPARED FOR

142A MEETING. AND I FIND THAT TO BE OFFENSIVE. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I ALSO WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE BOARD ATTORNEY HAS BEEN AVAILABLE TO EVERY MEMBER OF THIS BOARD 24-7 TO A COST OF $165,000 A YEAR. YOU CAN TAKE YOUR FEES AND YOU CAN LOOK AT IT AND IT IS VERY COMPARABLE. AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE MEMBERS ON STAFF FOR THOSE COMPANIES ARE 40-HOUR-A-WEEK JOBS. MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE BOARD ATTORNEY HAS BEEN AVAILABLE TO EVERY MEMBER OF THIS BOARD 24-7 FOR $165,000. THIS SCHOOL DISTRICT'S ATTORNEY HAVE ALSO BEEN AVAILABLE TO THE SUPERINTENDENT AND HIS DEPARTMENTS AS WE REQUESTS ALSO AVAILABLE AT THE NEED FOR QUITE A BIT OF LESS MONEY THAN WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR FACTS. THIS IS OUR TOTAL LEGAL FEES INCLUDING ALL LITIGATION AND ALL

143SERVICES. SO THAT'S WHY I FIND IT OFFENSIVE WE WERE NOT PREPARED WITH THIS INFORMATION. WE WERE ABLE TO GET CLEAR DIRECTION. WE ARE ABLE TO GET CLEAR INFORMATION PRIOR TO IT THE NIGHT BEFORE. BECAUSE WE DON'T LOOK COMPETENT. AND WE DON'T LOOK PREPARED AND YET YOU DO. AND SO THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE. AND THAT IS WHAT WE NEED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WHEN WE MEET. KOMEN COMB OKAY. THANK YOU. IF I CAN SAY A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. LAST -- LAST YEAR, I REQUESTED AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR MR. PORTER INSTEAD OF A TWO OR THREE ANNUAL CONTRACT. THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED. I DID NOT PREPARE -- I DO NOT PREPARE THE WORKSHOP. I DO NOT PREPARE THE WORKSHOP MATERIALS. WHAT I DO PREPARE IS PREPARING FOR WHATEVER IS COMING TO THE WORKSHOP. SO FOR ME, I

144PREPARED FOR WHAT THE POLICY WAS, WHAT THE STATUTE WAS, AND TALKING ABOUT THE LETTER. AND I PREPARED FOR WHAT I FELT WAS THE COMPARISONS OF THE DISTRICT. SO THIS IS NOT HERE TO MAKE A DECISION. WE ARE NOT MAKING A DECISION. TODAY IS PROVIDE INFORMATION TO SAY WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE, WHAT OTHER DISTRICTS ARE DOING. WHY IS IT TAKING A LONG TIME TO RESPOND TO STATE OR -- OR LOCAL LEVEL. IF NEXT WEEK WE ARE REMOVED FROM THE BOARD BECAUSE OF A LETTER THAT HAPPENED TWO MONTHS AGO, HOW MUCH TIME DID WE GET ENGAGED. TO ME NOT A GOTCHA. NOT SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST AND CLOSE IT OUT, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST -- WHICH I HAVE REQUESTED AND I DID NOT RECEIVE FOR A LONG TIME. I

145REQUESTED A YEAR AGO AT OUR MEETING MONTHLY INVOICES REGARDING THE FEES. I RECEIVED THOSE MONTHLY INVOICES TWICE. IN THAT TIME. I AM THE CHAIR. EVERY OTHER MONDAY WHEN I MEET FOR SCRIPT REVIEW AT 9:30, MR. PORTER HAS THE MEETING AT 10:00. I HAVE 20 MINUTES TO PREPARE FOR THAT. AS A CHAIR OF THE BOARD, WHAT I AM SAYING WHEN THERE ARE ISSUES OR CHALLENGES, PRIOR TO YOU COMING ON, MEMBER RENDON, THE DAY BEFORE A WORKSHOP IT WAS CANCELLED BECAUSE MR. PORTER HAD ANOTHER MEETING WITH A CLIENT THAT OCCURRED 24 HOURS BEFORE A WORKSHOP FOUR MONTHS AGO. SO THIS IS REALLY MY CONCERN OF -- I AM GLAD THAT YOU CAME IN AND THAT YOU SEE THAT BUT WHAT I SEE IS I SEE THE SIXTH LARGEST DISTRICT IN THE STATE BEING BROWARD AND THEN HAVING

146AN IN-HOUSE FULL-TIME ATTORNEY THAT COSTS $170,000. OUR DISTRICT WE ARE PAYING FOR A PART-TIME ATTORNEY THAT COMES OUT OF GENERAL FUND THE EXACT AMOUNT THAT OTHER DISTRICTS ARE GETTING FULL TIME. THAT IS MY CONCERN. THAT I DON'T FEEL LIKE I HAVE ACCESS ALL THE TIME. I DO FEEL CONCERNED IT TAKES TWO MONTHS FOR A LETTER. I DO FEEL CONCERNED WHEN YOU SAID TO ME THE NUMBER ONE THING WE NEED TO DO IS LOOK AT THE POLICIES. WE HAVE FOUR THINGS OF POLICIES, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE -- MY PROPOSAL IS THREE THINGS: I WOULD LIKE MR. PORTER TO START SENDING MONTHLY INVOICES TO EVERY SCHOOL MEMBER SO WE CAN SEE THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE STRUCTURED HOURS WORKING FOR THE POLICY BECAUSE WE ARE WORKING ON POLICY. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE STRUCTURED HOURS

147AND A OUTCOME FROM OUR ATTORNEY. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE STRUCTURED THINGS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN EXTENSION OF A TIME WHEN WE ARE HAVING AGENDA REVIEWS. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT A LETTER. I DON'T WANT TO SIT HERE AND WAIT FOR ANOTHER MONTH TO RESPOND TO THE DOE. I AM SAYING YOU HAVE BEEN HERE TWO MONTHS. I HAVE BEEN HERE TWO YEARS. ALL I AM SAYING IS I SPECIFICALLY ASKED A YEAR AGO FOR ONE-YEAR CONTRACT BECAUSE I DID NOT WANT TO RENEW A TWO-YEAR CONTRACT, BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS INEQUITABLE TO HAVE 30 OF THE LARGEST DISTRICTS IN THE COUNTRY, FIVE OF THEM BEING IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND EVERY SINGLE ONE HAVING IN-HOUSE ATTORNEY. I DO SAY THAT BECAUSE WHEN ACADEMIC

148SERVICES AND CALLS ME AND SAYS THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN WITH SEX ED. I NEED TO WORK WITH SOMEBODY WHO HAS MULTIPLE CLIENTS. WE ARE NOT THE PRIORITY. HOW DO WE RUN A $4 BILLION INDUSTRY AND NOT HAVE A DEDICATED CLIENT AND HATE TO SAY THAT. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE OTHER CLIENTS, I FEEL LIKE IT IS A CONFLICT OF AN INTEREST AS WELL THAT PEOPLE ARE WORKING WITH BOARD MEMBERS THAT PRIOR WORKED HERE IN THIS DISTRICT AND THOSE ARE THEIR CLIENTS. I THINK THAT IS A CONCERN TOO. I FEEL LIKE THAT IS A CONFLICT AS WELL. I AM NOT ASKING TO DO ANYTHING TODAY. WHAT I AM ASKING IS LET'S LOOK AT THIS. LET'S NOT LOOK AT THE PROCESS BUT WHY DID I HAVE TO DO THIS? BECAUSE I HAVE WAITED TWO YEARS.

149AND I DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FROM THE BOARD. THEY DID NOT WANT TO HEAR THIS. THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR THESE FAX. I AM BRINGING THIS OUT TO DISCUSS IT. THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A FINAL DECISION TO $. I AM ASKING FOR MONTHLY INVOICES SO WE CAN SEE. I SPOKE WITH MR. PORTER TEN TIMES THIS MONTH AND I WAS BILLED -- BASE SALARY $13,500 PLUS $2,000 FOR A POLICY. KRISTIN DAVIS IS DEALING WITH THE POLICY ALL THE TIME. I WANT SOMEBODY AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE WORK ON POLICIES FOUR TO TEN HOURS A WEEK. WE NEED TO LOOK AT THESE POLICIES AND MAKE SURE THEY ALIGN WITH THE DOE IN THE STATE STATUTE. THE NUMBER ONE THING POLICIES. THAT IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO. I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY AND I NEED A

150FULL-TIME ATTORNEY TO LOOK AT POLICIES AND LAWS AS THEY ARE COMING DOWN. THIS IS NOT A DECISION, THIS IS, OKAY, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE -- AS A CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE MONTHLY INVOICES SENT OUT TO EVERY SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SEE STRUCTURED HOURS SO WE CAN MAKE SURE WE GET THE LETTER AND ALSO THAT WE CAN GO THROUGH POLICIES CLEARLY. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME STRUCTURED HOURS. AND WOULD EITHER TO MOVE IT TO THE WORKSHOP OR REQUEST IT FOR A WORKSHOP AS WELL THE RETREAT TO DISCUSS THIS IN MORE DETAIL. YOU KNOW WE ARE COMPROMISED. IF YOU SEE -- IF WE ARE REMOVED AND SOMETHING OCCURS, A LETTER THAT WAS SENT OUT TWO MONTHS AGO SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF IN TWO WEEKS. I SHOULD

151HAVE SEEN SOME DRAFTS. EVERY MEMBER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENGAGED WELL BEFORE THIS MEETING. EVERY MEMBER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENGAGED ON A ONE ON ONE MEETING TO LOOK AT THE POLICY, LOOK AT THE LETTER, LOOK AT THE DRAFTS SO WHEN WE COME IN, I AM NOT SURPRISED BECAUSE I HAD NO IDEA HOW ANYBODY STOOD UNTIL I CAME IN HERE. WITH THAT I WILL JUST HAVE TO SAY THAT LEGALLY IF WE HAVE A CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT, IF WE GET REMOVED, IF WE ARE NOT FOLLOWING POLICY, I HAVE STATED MY CONCERNS QUITE CLEARLY THAT I AM VERY CONCERNED FOR THIS DISTRICT. I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS BOARD AND ABOUT THE LEGAL PROCESS FOR THIS DISTRICT MOVING FORWARD. AND THIS -- I WILL CLOSE THE MEETING -- MR. WASHINGTON, I KNOW YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING. Henry "Shake" Washington:

152YES. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I -- I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF, BECAUSE EVERY BOARD MEMBER HAS DIFFERENT NEEDS. EVERY TIME I HAD A CONCERN OR A NEED FOR SOMETHING, MR. PORTER WAS THERE. THAT IS MY -- FOR ME, THERE ARE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WHO MAY NOT FEEL THE SAME WAY, BUT MY NEEDS HAVE BEEN MET AS A BOARD MEMBER AND THAT'S WHAT I LOOK AT FROM MY INDIVIDUAL -- EVERY BOARD MEMBERS HAS THEIR OWN NEED AND WANT. ATTORNEY PORTER HAS DONE A GOOD JOB FOR ME. THANK YOU. Nadia Combs: THANK YOU, IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS, THIS MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED.