001All right, we will call the uh board mark shop for July 8th into session and we will recognize Miss White. >> Good afternoon, ma'am. >> Good afternoon. Some folders. Look at you. That teacher coming out of you. Everybody got a hand out. >> You know it. >> All right. >> Only way I know how to do it. >> Yes, ma'am. >> I used to slip by her classroom when she was teaching. >> And our names on them. >> Oh, look at that. >> That's thanks to my secretary. Jackie Jackie told me she did all this. >> Did you make Ron Winers go back to coaching because he >> Yeah, I saw that in the paper. >> Oh, wait. >> Yes, he's >> he says he's only doing it for a year. >> I know he
002is. >> So, we'll we'll see. >> I think he said >> at the most it's two years cuz he's done June of 27. So, I do I do know that. So, >> he keeps reminding me of that. >> So, Carter took a year off and went right on back. I I don't think he he says that if he needs to go back to doing something, he's gonna be coaching his grandchildren somewhere. So, >> yeah, he's he has plans. >> It's kind of weird to go to the grandkids games now. I'm telling you, >> trust me, we we're there. We're already there. >> Gator baseball, football. >> All right. Um so, I want to go ahead and get started. Um, I appreciate um having the opportunity to be able to further our discussions um from some
003things that were um brought out at the last board meeting and just so that we can all be on the same page and um make sure that what we have currently been doing is still what the board um desires for us to do or if there needs to be some changes. I know on your agenda it says um just the salary um but we are going to talk about the job descriptions as well and just make sure that we're all um good with that. So I'm going to go ahead and get started. In your folder, let me tell you, you have um you have a copy of the presentation so that in case you can't see on the slide, I tried to make it as big as I could. Um you do have a copy
004of a job description that we'll be looking at. You have a copy of the statute 101222. You also have um the job description policy 1600 um our the way you know that our board policies we' also have a 3600 and a 4600 which would be the same just for the different classifications of employees. So that's what's in your your folder that we'll be um looking at and going through. So just to to start out um we like I said we really just want to clarify um some roles and responsibilities so that um we have an understanding on both parts of how 10122 um impacts all of us. Um we want to have we want to know that um what we are doing falls within those guidelines um what superintendent has authority over and what has
005to come before the board. So, just as an overview, um, I went ahead and just copied the part of 10122 directly from the statute of what was discussed and what I think we're really looking at. Um, and I know that you can all read, but I'm just going to go ahead and read it. Um it says that this is talking about the authority and the um responsibilities of the school board that they are to designate positions to be filled, prescribe qualifications for those positions and provide for the appointment compensation, promotion, suspension and dismissal of employees as follows subject to the requirements of this chap chapter. Then it talks about positions, qualifications and appointments. Um, district school board shall act upon written recommendations submitted by the district school superintendent for positions to be filled for minimum
006qualifications for personnel for the various positions and for the persons nominated to fill such positions. The district school board may reject for good cause any employee nominated. And then it um goes on and it says the superintendent recommends employees for appointment and proposes job descriptions. You just kind of a little summary. school board approves or rejects it rejects these recommendations based on certain conditions. Um so if you if we think about positions to be filled qualifications and then the provide for the appointment compensation promotion suspension and dismissal your positions that are filled are the personnel allocations that are on pretty much every board agenda. Um, we always start out sometime the end of April, first part of May for the following school year and then every board meeting there's usually some kind of addition or
007deletion that we need to do. Uh, and those allocations are the positions that we fill. So, you are approving the positions to be filled through that. Yes, sir. I have a folder. >> Look at that. He even raised his hand like a >> I did. if I didn't >> superintended it. >> Um, and then prescribe qualifications. Those qualifications come in the form of job descriptions. And then provide for the appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal. That is with I'm going to take out compensation for just a minute. Um, compensation um is also on the job descriptions, but compensation is also in our salary schedules that are approved by the board. um the um appointment, promotion, suspension and dismissal that comes to you in the form of our personnel matters which you have every single board
008meeting. Um some are much larger than others depending on the time of year. So those things that um that are highlighted were from that statute, we present all of those things to you in on at board meetings for your approval. Um, so I just wanted to kind of go over that that is how those things are done. Um, and anytime anything that is changed in any of those, any type of personnel action, whatever, like when we talk about a personnel action, that's a transfer, that's a a change in a job assignment, that's a resignation, a retirement, a new position in the district, whatever it is, all of those come to you in that personnel matter. So that's that's all of those actions within there. And if you have, please stop me if you have any
009comments, questions, thoughts. >> Yes, sir. >> It says the superintendent will provide in writing written recommendations. So, I've never seen a written recommendation. >> Your personnel matters that are that is the superintendent's recommendations for appointments, >> but there's no backup or anything. It's just on a a consent agenda item with the with the title of the position. I mean, we can give you every C13 that goes with it if you would like for us to include those. >> Well, I I'd like to see the resume of the person that's, you know, now this is I'm not interested in instruction. I for what y'all are doing the instruction it's obvious things are working very well but any non-instructional you know I'd like to see the uh job description because you know as we had indicated or
010you had indicated at the last meeting that you were rewriting and updating job descriptions um and um you know we'll talk about one in a in a few minutes u which I think is woefully desperately needed um and then I'd like to the the resume of the person that you're recommending and then and then us to take official action on that individually, not on the consent of it. >> And that can be something that we discuss. That is I I will say I've I've don't know of any district that does that. Um but I mean that that can be something that is discussed by the board. Um after appointments are made, interview notes, resumes, all of that is public like record that can be requested. um when you have that personnel matter and you see
011that you can always get that information from us so that it's not um officially attached to a board agenda. Um that would that would be I'm just I'm just going to say that would be extremely cumbersome for every administrative support coordinator because that includes nec positions as well. So um >> that would I wouldn't want neect you know we really rubber stamp >> right we we have to have the same practices for the same classification of employees though so if we do it if we do it for one >> he updates everything we do >> if we do it for one administrative position we have to do it for all if we do it for one support position we have to do it for all >> that though in the event that we change our
012policy on how we do it we would have to stay consistent or >> well I mean >> can you change the policy just to say for >> non-instructional positions >> again that's going to be every one of those non-instructional positions so I mean that that's all I'm saying is and that can be something that is discussed >> well and we can you know have that discussion >> quite frankly while you're there even if it's a non-instructional position if a person were selected that had an instructional background that could be utilized in the case of an emergency to cover a school or or or the west end of the county or whatever. You know, superintendent has to have latitude to do that. I And I'm I'm let you go on. I've just could go on. I've
013just seen so much. >> You're off you're off track because we're talking about what comes to the board for approval >> and it says that shall be in writing. I've never seen anything in writing. >> Well, the the recommendations. So, we have a hiring protocol. I have a whole handbook that um when an administrator um the supervisor, whoever it is that's doing that interview, there are protocols that they must go through. Everything has to be submitted to HR. Um it all comes to us. Interview rubrics, background checks, the whole process comes through us as the superintendent's designee, my office makes sure all of that is there. And so then as his designate I am putting the recommendation to him through the personnel matters with the names the position the date of the action and the
014location. Um that that has been past practice for years and that is the way typically it is done in every district that I know of. >> And how do you how do you know that? when I look at their board because I've gone through and I've looked at board docs. >> All 67 districts, >> not all 67, the ones that are around us. >> Okay. Um well, just because it was that's the way it was done in the past, you know, to me isn't a a strong basis or reason for doing it this way. Um, you know, the way I read the statute, and I've confirmed this with our legal counsel, and I think we even have case law to support that, that the written recommendation should include information about the job, you know, have
015the job description so we can compare the job description to the position that's being filled and look at that person's resume or application or whatever it is so that we're confident, you know, and it may be and all that's received prior to the um the board meeting, you know, in our packets. >> So, are you are you asking to be a part of the hiring committee? >> No, I'm I'm >> I mean that's that's really >> it's these five people right here. >> That is the this is the hiring committee. >> We can this is >> that right counselor? >> What is what right? >> I mean >> the board does ultimately hire. >> Yes. Yes. Do you have the final >> objective for cause or good cause? >> Well, okay. So, >> okay. And
016>> let's let the board attorney explain because I think we this is a good jumping off point. So the statute is um fairly straightforward and succinct but like so many areas of the law interpretations come into play over certain terms that have a big impact on how the statutes applied. So for instance I agree exactly with what you said the board is to act upon nominations made by the superintendent. the board can accept or reject. And it's true, the board would accept unless a finding of good cause is made. I don't know that I agree with the what I think is the impression that I'm getting, which is that good cause is limited to a very finite number of factors. For instance, the bullet points that I see in the handout, they're not in the
017statute. the bullet where it says um and the I guess it is the um yeah good cause standard for board rejection of nominations and it cites one2221a those four bullet points they aren't in the statute and if you look at the case law as defining good cause um I think that any of these bullet points would definitely be good cause, but I think that there are other factors that are allowed for good cause such as uh a a board and I provided case law to M. I stand chairman where the board found that the qualifications that the superintendent had unilaterally, not this, not this superintendent, not this school district, but the qualifications or criteria that the that the superintendent had unilaterally set for hiring were not appropriate. Uh they they did they weren't basically expansive
018enough. And even though the person that was submitted might have met those qualifications, the board found that there was good cause for not for not for not hiring that person and rejecting that person. And the appellet court found that that was accurate that that was true that that good cause that they had that discretion. It's clear that the board can't and I'm just I'm giving you an opinion of law now and we everyone knows people can differ on opinions of law and judges even differ on opinions of law but it's clear that there can't be an arbitrary reason for rejecting a superintendent's nomination like for instance and there's some that are given in some cases they don't think that that applicant will fit in with the uh community or something else that's arbitrary. Uh but
019it's also clear that there's more latitude in defining what the cause is than simply saying, "Well, we made the job qualifications. He fit those job qualifications, so you got to accept him." >> I I do not believe that's the case at all. I don't believe that's the law. So, it's clear there's a shared responsibility. In my opinion, the law is pretty very clear on that. There's a shared responsibility. Um, and I think it's also clear that the intent is to have the superintendent have enough control so that he can manage the operation of the district. I don't think there's any doubt about that either if you look at all the cases I've read. But it but I also think it's clear that the that the board itself that there is there is meat and substance
020in the statute that says that you can reject a nomination. That's that's my bottom line. I mean, there's a whole lot of stuff out there and I've tried to read as much of it as I could and I've tried not to turn this into a law school class, but just try to give you what I consider to be the kind of the highlights of it. So, >> and and we've had a couple conversations and I completely agree with Mr. Holmes. Um, and I was going to kind of elaborate on that slide that that was not the end all beall of that list. It was just going to give some examples once I got there. ask the chair a question. What is your rationale? I mean, is there a specific >> position or something? I mean,
021you evidently are focusing on administrators or what is your focus here? >> Well, because my expertise lies in the business administration administration part. Somebody we got three educators on here that certainly can do that. But my my reasoning is that doing the statute what what the legislature said we shall do. Not may, not can, might, but we shall do. And I I think it's incumbent upon us to do that. >> That's my reason. >> I didn't know if there was a particular case um or reason that you're you're to me kind of digging in deeper than you have in the past. I mean, I'm >> because this is the first time that I've been a I didn't know I wasn't aware of the statute until three weeks ago and I brought it up at at
022the school because I've been told exactly the opposite by a board member. The school boards association never in the new school board training brought that up. In fact, you know, they what they do to train new school board members is a joke in my opinion. And um and so it hit me like a ton of bricks and saying we're not doing this, you know, and I think it's appropriate that we do it. That's my reasoning. So what I'm asking is you want to get into the granular level? >> No. >> Of com of of looking at every single applicant, looking at all their qualifications. >> I mean, is that what you're trying to do? You're trying to get down and and really do the business of our HR or I mean I just want to
023know how granular you're trying to get here. >> I'm just trying to do what the statute requires us to do. And the only way I can do that is by reviewing the information, the reviewing the job description, which I can tell you that, you know, the one that most recently won woefully inadequate for the position. And so I like to look at the job description and then the person that you're recommending their qualifications, their resume. All right. And if I don't have any questions, it's automatic. They're they're approved. >> Well, so not just you. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I mean, no. It's if in your opinion, if they're not qualified, it would be a board. >> The board decision, right? The board. That's not what you said. >> You're exactly right. >> You can you
024can make this as easy. >> Wait, Mr. Gillyard had to >> No, I was just let me go ahead Sandy just real quick. I want to say let you can make this as as hard and as difficult as you want to do or you can make running the school district very smoothly transitory to where if you have something going on, you have the ability to make decisions and and make it easy. But you go to these schoolboard trainings and you've got an appointed superintendent that a few board members are trying to get kicked out of office and they go in there and they're wanting to know any way they can to to single out any employee they can to create a problem in the district and then you've got a superintendent trying to get their
025contract bought out and and trying to irritate them as much as they can and and you go through a training session and you listen to the stuff going on and this is I've never seen seen a district provide job descriptions of this caliber, but it we're still going to vote on whoever is selected or recommended. >> But job description is a very important component about that. I mean, I can tell you that, you know, job descriptions basically are the basis for the hiring and and all the the the the qualifications as as to the particular job. Um you know I think it it's our it's incumbent up but the statute says we shall do it >> and we shall have we have been doing it >> tonight >> and so what stand >> so initially
026in the advertisement goes out. >> Yes ma'am. All right. I apply. I submit my application. The superintendent then has his committee that goes through the application making sure that I have all the eyes dotted and the tees crossed and I am a qualified candidate. The superintendent then, if I correct me if I'm wrong, looks at the list possibly and and says this is a goal and you submit those names then to the board for us to to >> vote on interview and there >> I mean you are after everything interview me if I did not qualify. So you've selected the five >> and you've interviewed us and and maybe you cut it down to three. I don't know. But you've gone through whatever that magic number is. And then once it comes to us, the
027committee that the superintendent trusts to to to adhere to >> has made their decision >> and and then he then in turns give it to us, >> right? >> Yes, ma'am. And again, um, when you receive those personnel matters a week before the meeting, if there is anyone on there that someone has a question about, you can always get information. I mean, that that's I don't think I've ever denied anyone information. I mean, I I would like some clarification. I mean, when I see written recommendations, I'm giving you written recommendations in the matter of personnel matter. I'm listing out the names. I'm listing out the positions. I'm listing out the location. I'm listing out the date of the action. I'm listing out what action it is. That is the written recommendation. those recommendations based on
028the other administrators and supervisors that have been placed into the positions that handle the interview process and that selection process based on the applicants that they get. So >> I I did I just I think sometimes I think in our discussions it seems like um I think people misconstrue I think it see it ends up being like we're we're so far apart and I know that we are um from and you can tell me if I'm misconstring what you're saying you know uh Dr. Dr. Cerny was asking so you want to see every single resume and you clarified that no you don't but the ones that >> just the ones that they're recommending. So my my understanding of what you're saying is because the statute says we shall make this decision. >> So yes, we
029could just say okay these are these are what's recommended and we can say it. But it sounds like you're just wanting to do do a little bit of diligence, right, >> on the one the one individual per >> per position that we're asking about. >> Um it it does sound like any of us have the ability to go get that information. Yes, ma'am. >> But now >> if if one individual if it didn't come to the whole board and one individual goes to you and says, "Hey, I want to see exactly like all these people we're hiring this month." Um, and I want to see the resumes and just, you know, it's it I kind of agree if it says the board shall do these things, we it just says take action and and shall
030prescribe um I guess that action could technically be just on the consent agenda just saying sure we we trust our superintendent underneath. But one, um, there's a couple of things that that the school board administr FSBA does teach and it they they try very hard to keep you in your lane and that's a big big big phrase they use. And so while I try to stay in my lane as well and understand that that Dr. Cerny has a lot of leeway in a lot of areas and and justifiably so. I think it is incumbent upon us to make sure we are doing our job and I think it would be kind of overwhelming to everybody if we had to look at all the resumes. We're not the hiring committee. Uh and I don't think we
031have that that's not our lane. Um but when it comes to the final people and and I myself had been confused about what we were even looking at on some you know we get a list of people and positions >> you know but you're right FSBA in training tells us nothing about this >> and and us being the two youngest or the newest >> um it it's this is an it's just interesting to me and I don't have a solution but I think if I think it would be sort of messier if one of us went to you and said, "I want to see all the resumes for the people that were hiring at least, you know, the new hires." Um, and then if there was a few that there was concerns about, then would
032that board member then have to come and pull that entire agenda item to discuss that and we would just be discussing this individual person? >> I mean, I I don't know how that would go. I'm not sure. And would it be easier if just for at least for new hires or maybe we could categorize it where we get, you know, a job description and a resume for that those just those individuals. >> And again, um, we we can have discussion and the consensus of the board, we can change our practices. Um, so you know, and I have a a slide where we're going to have some of those discussions. >> Your slide. >> Thank you. probably interrupted all of it as we much as we can. >> We also have um policy 1600 which is
033um around job descriptions. I provided that for you. Um and this is just a summary. This is not like this is this is what I do as an educator is summarized. Um school board acts on position and minimum qualifications and superintendent is authorized to maintain job descriptions including skills, knowledge and abilities, essential functions and physical requirements for each administrative position. Again, that's the administrative policy 1600. If you look at 3600, it's going to say requirements for each instructional position. If you look at 4600, it's going to say requirements for each support, I believe it says support position. Um, so we have that policy in place. So, from past practice, and when I'm saying past practice, I've been in HR for eight years. Um, Jackie's been in HR for um, well, we'll just say 20 plus
034years. Um, when I went into HR, um, she and I were both trained by previous people that were in there under prior administration. And, um, so we have just been continuing with the same past practice that had always been done and have been put towards the board. Um, and so when it comes to job description updates from past practice, it was any kind of creation of a new job classification or position, a change in salary schedule or the pay grade. So that's that's on your the job descriptions. Um, position reclassification from support to administrative, which impacts compensation, contract modifications. So that would be the term like if it's going from a 10-month to a 12-month position or an 11month, the status or the way that they are evaluated would would be a board approved. And
035then any substantial expansion of duties that would impact compensation or evaluation. Again, this is what has been past practice for job description approval. Okay? And in your folder, I did include a job description just so you can can see. And I just pulled um a principal job description and I kind of highlighted the areas or not kind of I I highlighted the areas that in the past have been past practice that have been presented um for board approval, the qualifications that's on that first page. Now let me let me start over. If it is a brand new position, then you're going to get the entire thing. >> Okay? If it's a brand new position, you would get you would be approving everything in here. And um the way that you know a job description is
036um either new or changed on the personnel matters section of the consent agenda. It is always listed. These are the changes that are taking place. If there's a change or an update to that job description, if that's not there, then it's a creation of a new position. Okay? So, the qualifications and then if you go to the third page, your terms of employment. So, that's towards the bottom of that third page, terms of employment, and in that terms of employment, you're talking about the contract, you're talking about the compensation schedule. Um, so that is included in there. the evaluation and then any of the job code titles, job codes, classification, all of that comes from the DOE crosswalk that we have and that ties in with um like the codes that has to be in
037there. Like this is very state specific information. So if any of that was to change that has always past practice gone before you for approval of those changes. Okay. So that that has been past practice for things that have been changed. Typically in the past, again, this has been um past practice that have not required board action, unless it affects pay or classification. So, if it if it if it affects pay or classification, that's always going to go to the board for approval. Um but if it's changes or an updates to supervisory assignment, so maybe it's not supervised by a um principal anymore. Maybe it's supervised by a director or it's not supervised by a director, it's supervised by an assistant superintendent. That's just a supervisory assignment. That doesn't change any of those other items
038that we have done. Um clarifying or aligning duties within the existing scope that again does not impact like substantial changes. Okay. Or updating terminology or departmental alignment. So typically, so like if a position was moving from um the department of federal programs to the department of strategic initiatives, we we have one that was very similar to that. That was just a move of what department it's going under. It really is not specified. It was really just the who's evaluating and who's supervising. And so that change was done. So that typically has not been part of board approval. So that I wanted to share with you that has been past practice. Okay. Um so that's pretty much it on job descriptions. And then I you know Mr. Holmes has already led us to the next one
039about the the good cause. I am not an attorney. I will never ever ever in my worst nightmare would be an attorney. >> Stop. >> Um I'm sorry. you probably would never be a teacher. Um, so it does say that it that it can be rejected, a nomination can be rejected based on good cause. There is no way that anybody could ever in black and white explain what good cause is because it's like, you know, it's pretty subjective. >> Um, but from information that Mr. Holmes has shared with me and some other other information that I found it basically has to do something with the qualifications. So there's a misalignment of qualifications. They don't meet required qualifications or something else. So it it's still tied to those qualifications. He stated that or something like morally
040or ethically like going on. Um so you know if you if you think about that that's and that that's very broad. I understand that and this was not intended to be this is the only thing that is there. It was just going to be for some talking points. Yes, ma'am. >> Do you still do the reference check like they have to have ma'am x number of references? The person may say something >> where I came from that may lead to you not even >> Yes ma'am. >> recommending me. Um, so we are required by statute to do an employment history check on any known employer that an applicant has. We do our very due diligent in doing that. Um, we do it I mean and when they send in and let me like a C13
041is the board approved personnel action form. Okay. So let me just kind of start there. So, when um I I'm I'm at a school, I'm a principal, I have interviewed, I'm wanting to hire Holly Pickkins as my teacher, my secretary is going to start a we call it a C-13. It's a personnel action form and she's going to put all the information in there and it's going to be this is who we're wanting to hire. These are the you know, like and then it's going to go to one of my people in my office who's going to check for qualifications. Does this person match up with the qualifications that's on the job description? If not, we send it back and say there's a problem with qualifications. So, right there's the very first thing that happens.
042And then we do other checks. Once it gets past all of those initial checks, qualifications, employment history checks have been done because those have to be uploaded and sent in with that C13 form. um verifying, you know, I mean, there's there's things that probably would make no sense to y'all, but we verify if they've ever been an F FRS employee because that matters in the hiring process. So, all of those things are done before we ever even say to the school, yes, you can hire this person. So, those employment history checks, if they don't send that in, Jackie is going to send it back to the secretary and go, you didn't send me an interview rubric. You didn't send me employment history checks. Now unfortunately there are some places of employment in the public sector
043that will charge people to even get that from them. So sometimes we just have to make a documentation that we attempted to make contact so many times or you know this person was no longer there no one could give information but we do everything we can for any known employer that we have knowledge of like that's I'm not getting in trouble for that. Um, so, so that's just that that's how that piece goes before it ever even gets to, okay, now you're going to do your postire questions. And then once you do your postire questions, you're going to have to go get fingerprinted. And then once you get your fingerprints done, then you're going to come in and you're going to do all these other things before we ever even say you are hired. And
044then that's when we would put it towards the board as a personnel recommendation for that position. Holly, do you have a question? No, I'm just thinking that written recommendations for minimum qualifications doesn't have to be a long thing. Correct. I mean, a written recommendation can be exactly what we get because that's Dr. Cerny's recommendation to us and we have to based on the qualifications >> isn't that a written recommend does that not suffice I mean I'm not saying we maybe shouldn't get more involved but what we've done suffices it follows >> so I'm not saying that it doesn't um uh I will explain from my perspective that I don't think your decision to reject or accept it can be subjective. I think it's >> subjective is the opposite of what it should be. >> I
045think it should be objective. I think that there's subjectivity in the determination of qualifications from my perspective. >> That is what I was referring to. Yes, sir. >> Okay. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. when I said subjective like >> so I mean when I mean it though I'm talking about the job description correct i.e. when you decide what what criteria should a person holding a certain position have. Uh you know and without giving examples uh you know there could be particular educational requirement that you that you think is appropriate could be field related. In other words the educational requirement could be field related or not. Um there could be an experience factor involved. in in the nature of the field that the person's going to be working. I think there's subjectivity there in terms of fashioning
046that job description and I think that is according to statute >> for you to do >> ultimately you're you're to determine minimum qualifications once that's done and I'm not saying it hasn't been done. I'm trying to be careful to say that. There may have been longstanding job descriptions that have all that. But once that's done, then I think the process of determining whether or not the person meets those qualifications is more objective. They either do or they don't have a degree. >> Correct? >> Do or they don't have a degree that's field related. They either do or they don't have experience. >> So, okay. So, from my perspective, >> the approval or rejection process is more objective. the job description is more there's more subjectivity in that from my perspective. >> So and then terms
047of uh you know what you accept from staff in determining whether a particular person meets the the qualifications. I mean I think that could be a number of different things. I don't think there's a particular, you know, a particular um scale that that the statute prescribes. You have the ability to make your own policy as to those kinds of things so long as it complies with the statute. Policies are great. Every district has the ability to make them, but they have to correspond to and comply with the state statute or they're not they're not great. So, from from my standpoint, um, reading the statute, reading the cases, uh, and and there's a boatload of them out there. I picked a couple that I thought kind of illustrated the point best, illustrated the points best as
048and when I say illustrate the point, I mean illustrate maybe my understanding of what the legislature intended. Um, I found an administrative case which went up on um, from a person who was rejected. I think it was a school psychologist that was rejected for a position that went up through the administrative processes to a hearing officer and then I found an appellet case that went up probably because it was on the appeal of either the school board or the superintendent. I didn't pay attention to which I've got the case to see what to help me understand meaning or give meaning to >> the statute and the and the totality of the opinions. And from my perspective, it seems that the the biggest thing is the the job description and the qualifications and then whether what
049degree of certainty you want to have in terms of making certain that the person meets the job description. I mean, I kind of think that's that's kind of up to the board to decide. So from and I agree with you obviously how Miss board member Pickkins it is a board decision on the rejection or the um you know or the acceptance and so I guess not to confuse anymore it's I think there's latitude in how the criteria are met but I think it's important that the criteria be met the statute be complied with. I don't think that and I'll admit talking to some past school board members, none of whom are sitting on this panel uh right now about just the realities of the school board life. And I was told, hey, we don't have
050any we don't have any responsibility for personnel matters. We don't that's not our deal. I kind of accepted it at face value. And I don't doubt that they're teaching that at the schools. I've been to enough of the League of Cities and County Schools so that I understand they're making generalizations to a bunch of new folks that are coming into positions and they're trying to they're trying to simplify it to the point that sometimes their simplifications maybe aren't as meaningful as they could be. Um, but when I was shown the statute, which was when Phil was well, he showed it to me, I guess, I was actually taking it back myself a little bit because it it doesn't say that this personnel matters are totally outside of your purview. So, that led that that led
051us to where we are. But anyway, other than that, I think if you have specific questions, I'll try to answer them. I understand it's confusing. I'm not saying it's been done wrong. That's not my that's not my point. I'm not putting I'm not trying to make a point of any particular case. I'm just saying that I think that there is a responsibility that statute imposes >> and and we present those personnel matters to you in a written form every single board meeting. Well, and over the years, even if even if you've hired somebody and and you didn't have reason to look at the background at the time or nothing showed up and then somebody says, "Well, this person was accused of theft or or or stole some money somewhere or this person texted something very
052inappropriate and and created problems that, you know, in the background. ground of that person or or made, you know, phone calls that were harassing. I've seen all this stuff happen here in Putham County over the years and and people be arrested, the whole nine yards, former administrators. I don't want to go through and call any names, but this is it is serious business when you go to looking into backgrounds. And a lot of times these things don't come forward until somebody's hired. And nine times out of 10 when you get in one of these conversations, it's over one or two people that somebody's got a beef about. And that's that's just what I've seen in my past experience. And I I hate it that it's that way, but you know, but but we do have
053a responsibility and that is to act on recommendations that come to us and to and the job descriptions, but they've been coming to us all along. >> Yes, ma'am. May I ask uh I remember uh once in the past you all were asked and when I say you all I don't mean that derogatory you were asked to when when trips were being made to supply an agenda etc >> and you did it >> and we were able to skim and see all right fine >> how much of of an of additional time would it take once you have come down to the five to just put either the rubric that you used or something would that >> well I mean to me >> I'm saying to so that >> to me that if you if
054you're asking for the like if it comes down to the five that's not even a recommendation we're making to you yet for that position that's still in the selection process >> so >> I don't think the board participates is in the selection process at all. From my perspective, I think the superintendent makes a recommendation. I don't think he has to make five recommendations. The board choose. I think that's pretty clear in the statute. Matter of fact, there's case law to that point. He makes a recommendation. He in this case, the board either accepts it or rejects it. If you reject it, it's up to him to make a second recommendation. My understanding of the statute is he can go three times. If he stops, then you can make some then you can make a choice
055at that point. But I >> But you don't I don't think you re review five applicants to determine which one you think is qualified. I think you act upon the one he submits. That's that's my >> Okay. The one that is listed on the personnel matter. Yes. that >> and and I just want to state like my signature goes on those personnel actions and like I value my signature and I value what my signature stands for and it's it's going to go on a document that I know that has been through the process that we have outlined in our protocols in my office and all of those things I can I can assure you we've gone through job description qualifications have been checked background has been checked Employment history has been checked. Interview rubrics have
056been done. Veteran status has been checked. Like all of those things before my signature is going to go on it. I am going to be 99.9% because I am not perfect. So I'm not going to say 100% confident in what my signature goes on because I value my name. To be honest, I think that's kind of the point that that Phil's trying to make is that we are putting our signatures basically with our votes. And and Sandy, I was going to bring up exactly what you brought up that a while back we you know, we would get these requests for right for funds for a field trip or for this or that or the other, but we didn't really know or for or for district personnel to go to certain training functions. And we're like,
057well, we don't know what who's putting this on and what it is. and we had a discussion about that and now with all of those we get to see right like so if I wanted to research who's putting on this function that we're sending employees to um to see if it's you know a company that doesn't align with our ideals we could we could have that information to look at it so I I think it is very similar what's being asked here we're not asking for well there's not a we but I think Phil is is not asking for everything the in the hiring process but but more than just a name on a piece of >> correct and again like I said consensus of the board we can change those practices um but the
058one that is coming to you today has 29 12 13 14 15 16 17 people that are being recommended for appointments to a position and um that many more that's being recommended for a new assignment in the district which is really a new appointment. So, if you want those individually and and and you can determine like if is there a certain classification, but if you want those people pulled off of this and put on as individual with all of their documentation and that is the consensus of the board, then that is a practice that we can begin working on creating a policy for. I've never had a problem finding out any background information on anybody that applies for a job. So, I don't I don't I don't see if it's >> Well, y'all >> from
059the standpoint of >> from the instructional side, you know, there's state laws for certification of teachers and, you know, principles and the whole thing. I'm not worried about the instructional side. I'm very confident that that things are being followed very clearly and, you know, I can go to the schools and see that firsthand. The support administration side is a whole different animal. That's business administration. That doesn't have anything really to do with the instruction. All I'm asking is exactly what Linda is saying is how hard is it to put the job descript I've never seen a job description in my packet that I'm aware. I don't you know and I would remembered that you know a specific job description for a job to be filled or that the superintendent was making a recommendation for that
060that we have that for the recommendation only. Nobody else not involved in the hiring, who applied, all that stuff. None of that. Just the recommendation, the job description, and the qualifications that y'all made the decision on, the resume or the application. That simple as that. >> And and we can and we just have to determine if that's the consensus of the board and what classification of employees you want that for. Um, but I I do want to clarify there are administrative positions in this district that have direct impact on instruction >> and there is background information that if once you see it >> and you you you don't know what somebody's going to do with it. >> I mean sometimes I mean may not be something really bad but there's there's sometimes there's things that
061doesn't need to be shown around. If you've got somebody that's got an axe to grind or wants to create a problem for someone, >> it it's public record. It's it's public record. I mean, once they become an employee, it's once they become an employee, >> they're still public record. >> It's public record that may have been >> right >> fell under the tie a long time ago that can come to work. But >> so if we could we talk about um Go ahead, Miss Mard. >> No, he had Mr. uh board chair had mentioned one in particular that I mean you said fell way off the mark as in the person that's fitting that position or I mean not not being qualified to fit fit that position. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> All right. And
062>> that recommendation hasn't been made yet. >> It's in the It's on the agenda today. >> No, sir. Not that recommendation. >> All right. Um, may I ask cuz we in a workshop. May I ask what what job description? >> She says it's not going to be it's not on there today. So, >> it's going to always boil down to one or two people in one of these deals. I'm telling you. >> Okay. Okay. >> Can I um I just for clarification for what I'm hearing. So, is it part of it you would like for the board to help or to look at our current job descriptions for our person, not for teachers, not for instructional. You would like for us to review those >> and review the qualifications. >> Correct. If we did that,
063would there be a confidence in the fact that that that was being carried out by HR, the superintendent and everyone else? Or you would still want to look at the individual being recognized to make in your in your view meets the qualifications. So we >> Okay. >> Yeah. So the statute says we'll you know review and you know promagate qualifications and a job description salary um which would also be part of a recommendation from the superintendent. Um and then the and you know then the overall qualifications for that position. So um I think it's incumbent upon us to do it whether there's a polic or not. I think the statute supersedes any policy. I think that we should be doing that now. I mean, I'm I'm like Mr. Holmes. When I read that statute, it
064was like a ton of bricks fell on me because that was just the opposite of what everybody else had been telling me. And even though um you know, we're going to disagree on things, the whole board makes the decision, not any individual, not me individually or anybody else. I mean, it's the board. But I think it's it's important that the board all see that information so that they don't you know I don't like if I call and say well I'd like this information. Well if you don't have it and it comes up in the board meeting you you don't how can you make a a rational decision or understand where a board member that had that information was coming from. So I don't see it as a complicated thing. >> Yes sir. So are we
065are we asking that starting today that is our practice or are we talking about going back to every job that's here that's all every position that's already filled or just the new ones that are coming in any new position. Oh okay >> yeah I'm talking about going back what's been done is done. I mean that that's that's more under the bridge. I'm just talking about you know new positions and and you know specifically n instruction. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, I just want to kind of >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> Wrap a couple of things up. So, a couple of now a couple of things that has been brought up about what we need to discuss and need to get some clarification on how we move forward with this. The first thing is and
066this was brought up that it was about job description changes and um past practice. I went over that, but is the board's consensus that you would like for us to change that to where any type of change on a job description comes to you? Not just the things that are specifically stated in state statute, but anything in the job description that would be a change. If it's a change in a responsibility, if it is a change in who is supervising, if it is a change in a per like anything that's in between that qualification and terms of employment on the job description, >> I'm not interested in that. >> If I I just like that's that's one of the items up for discussion is do you does that need to be changed? And if I
067am understanding board policy, 1600, 3600, 4600, if that is those policies would need to be updated to reflect that because as of now, the way that policy reads to me is the superintendent has authority over those functions of the job description. So that those that's up for cons that's just, you know, >> I don't think it needs to be that detailed. But I think it just it would be >> qualifications, compensation, >> qualification, compensation, >> contract, terms of in terms of contract or anything about the evaluation process. So So the past practices on our job descriptions are sufficient. >> What do you think, counselor? >> It would be for me. My concern is that if you change a job description to add responsibilities with the possibility those responsibilities might be outside of the field or
068ambit of what was previously being uh required of the of the of the holder of the job and then you fill that job. um if you've changed well the case that I one of the cases I provided specifically was a case in which the superintendent had unilaterally changed the job description without the input of the board and then had filled it well had recommended someone for approval. He changed the description and then he recommended someone for approval. The board rejected it for cause. The appellet court said that in unilaterally changing the job description and then proposing someone that the board felt didn't hold the requisite qualifications to hold the job even though it might have met the job description the superintendent made that the board was justified in finding good cause to reject the applicant.
069So the that was a finance case that was a um that was a finance director where so the I guess the superintendent had changed the job description to eliminate experience. The person who the superintendent propo unilaterally the board did not approve the change of job description. The superintendent then proposed someone who had a master's degree in business administration and a degree in finance but no school finance related experience. The board found that that was not an acceptable change to eliminate the need for experience and then propose someone who had educational qualifications but no school finance experience and the board rejected that applicant. >> But that was a change in qualification >> that is qualification qualifications that relate to description. I mean, if you create a description that doesn't require experience, then the qualification doesn't require
070experience. And that's what, >> right? And and that's substantial changes to responsibilities, which we which I stated is past practice. If there's a substantial change to that, that's going to change the scope of the position, it would definitely come to you. >> So, that's that's my point. if it's going to be >> most definitely. >> But if you re if the position has a new name, then that's not if if it's called something else, the job description has to be rewritten, right? >> Well, I mean, I guess you have to look at a specific case, but I would think so. I mean, I would think that if you changing the name of it, that's going to imply that you've changed responsibilities, right? And I would think that the way the case reads, the way that
071I read that case, that would mean that the board would have to act upon that. And the point I was trying to make was in that other case, the person that was submitted met the qualifications of the new job description, >> but the new job description had had not been approved by the board. Right? The qualifications had not been approved by the board. So the so the board said, "Uh-uh. Yeah, they've got degrees and all, but we don't find that they've got school related finance experience. We're we're rejecting them for cause." That went up to the appellet courts all the way and the appellet court said no. >> That was part of the qualifications. >> That was off the top of your head. >> I can tell you. >> Yeah, that was part of the
072qualifications from the pre the approved job description from before >> Baker County. So, >> so the second um piece is like that that needs to be >> the consensus of the board, you know, do we all consensus on on a policy >> leaving those the way that we have been doing? >> Yeah. Okay. I'm for leaving it the way. >> Okay. And then that the other piece that has been brought up for discussion is are there classifications of employees that you would like for us to pull out individually on personnel matters so that it's a separate document with job description attached, the person's qualifications attached, application, what whatever it is that you that y'all decide attached. And those recommendations become individual recommendations for whatever classification of employee that you are asking for. And and I
073I just >> like I I I am going to say on behalf of of my person over there that will be extremely timeconuming depending on like this time there's there's only teachers and pair professionals and custo custodians on there you know. So sometimes it may not be but there may be times that it is. So I just >> what I would say um Miss White Horse is that it would be um any assistant or associate superintendent, executive director, director, coordinator, the senior level administrative positions. >> Okay. Coordinators. Um so >> are they are they >> they are not a senior level. No sir. directors are not senior level. >> They >> executive directors, assistant superintendents are some of our coordinators supervise. I mean some of our school food service managers is considered a support position.
074They supervise. I mean that that's the thing. That's why I was saying like when you say just like a classification of employees, you're if you say administration and you just blanket administration, you're talking about a lot of positions that's within the category of administration. If you're talking about senior leadership, senior leadership, it's executive directors and above. So, so there's there's two different things like so you know is is there a specification of employees that y'all want to look at to and again like that that has to be a consensus of the board. We will do Jackie will do what I asked Jackie to do and I'm going to do what the board makes a consensus decision on doing because we're going to follow what we're supposed to. I'd like to make a motion, right? >>
075Can't make a motion. >> And that was going to be my next question. If y'all want to change that, does that would have to come on a board agenda like before it would even become effective. So, >> well, my re what I'd like to see is directors in the book. >> Now, that's not that. But the other board, you know, that I mean, I want to hear what the other board members what they think. >> I I'm curious. I mean, how many people are we talking? I mean ballpark >> directors and above probably 25 plus >> 15 20 25 >> 25 plus because you're looking at your departments for directors. So 25 plus >> if >> So we're talking about the possibility of just getting the job description and the resume >> and the and
076and I would just I would like application. Um I mean we can print that, right? That's all part of that whole packet and a resume. I mean what whatever it is that you ask for, >> we can we can pull those out and make that a separate agenda item for that position as the written recommendation. So, I mean, I think >> I think it'd be reasonable for just for us to have just >> minimal, but enough to make us look at it and know that when we're approving something, we're approving it knowingly. >> Um, is all and and I will I just wanted to add because it's not always about it's not always about a lack of trust for our district, but it it is about perception. Um, and I think it shows a good
077faith if we're trying I think this workshop's very positive. Actually, I'm kind of learning a lot right right now. Um, and the more we learn, and I know there's there's more um experienced board members than others, but the more I learn personally, the better job I'm going to do, and I've learned a lot about just the the things that we have been getting. So, to realize that I could make even better decisions with a little bit more information. Um, and I think that actually helps build trust more between the board and the district personally, but I I don't want to overload our district personnel and having to give us volumes and volumes and volumes. But even something I think you had given me just a week ago helped. But and and I'm looking because you
078have these classified it as administrative or it says administration and then the last few pages >> that's why right that's why I needed to like clarify because and and I do have and I was going to get to this um >> two pages of administration and I wouldn't think >> Miss Wagner has referenced it. >> Um nope that's that's okay. So, um I know that there was a um a spreadsheet of administrative and support salaries that schedule that was given to that was given to Mr. Liry and that was an inaccurate support that was an inaccurate salary um spreadsheet. Um it it was from some discussions that we were h having of as a whatif situation if everyone got raises again like like last year like what would that look like and it didn't go
079back the that like what if didn't get taken off. Um, so I do have a spreadsheet for each of you and it will help in understanding what I'm talking about when I refer to administration because if you just say administration, you're looking at there's two pages of administration and then there's well there's more than that because then there's it's just there's a lot of administrative positions. But if you specify directors and above then that that narrows it down. But I do want to give this to you. I just want to point out um as you're looking at it um I have highlighted in yellow If there is an employee that has a difference in their salary from 2425 to 2526, it has to do with they moved up a step. If they were a school-based
080um school-based administrator or their their experience moved them up a step, so that may have caused a little bit of an increase or some of them are brand new assignments. So, for example, Ashley is listed on here. Ashley Ore was an instructional. She is now one of our new APS. So, of course, her salary looks like it's there's a huge increase because she didn't have a 2425 administrative salary. Um, >> can I interrupt you just? >> Yes, sir. >> I just for a point of clarification when you say directors and above. Um, I just want to clarify assistant superintendent I believe are and of course they have job descriptions and all but they are actually appointed by me. Now again, I need some clarification. Um, as far as are we looking at, >> you got
081>> in the same light as all these other positions that we're talking about. >> You got to pick who you trust and that's just >> the board attorney. Go ahead. >> I would have thought >> I understand that, Phil, but I mean, this is just getting a little out of out of sorts here. >> I'll look. >> Go ahead, Rick. I'm sorry. I mean, I I didn't see anything in the case law that uh I I'll have to go back looking specifically at assistant superintendent, but um I would have thought that that there as an employee of the district filling a position that they would have had a job description and um a would have been hired in the same fashion and confirmed as as other employees. But I'll go back and specifically look. >>
082Yeah. and and they do have to and again I'm just pointing out differences they have to submit forms every year to the elections commission and that type thing um and financial disclosure and all that kind of stuff. So I'm just I'm asking is that >> I'll find out specifically because I >> had had no reason or to look at that specifically but I will >> thank you. >> So So we are getting a little close on time and I do want to talk about salaries since I just gave this to you. you have that. I just wanted to make sure you had um the correct information. Um our administrative and support um personnel have not received raises for 2526. Um we would never do that before any of our other employees other than our classified.
083Our classified has already gotten their raises. We would never even like have a conversation a real conversation about that. So I wanted to make sure you had the accurate information on that. Miss, real quick, could you um just draft that policy and draft them and put it on the next agenda and then we can you know then the board if they have more discussion they can do it and we can move forward with that. >> I mean is that >> we can you know >> I I don't know that the actual procedure for that. So >> for the board policy >> have to be amended >> right that that will have to be amended. I mean, as far as like is that the consensus of the board to put I guess that's what I'm asking
084is like how >> in here but I'm not I just think it's waste of time. >> Okay. Are the board members? >> It's going to boil down to one or two people. >> Okay. >> Just rephrase exactly what we're trying to make a decision on here. >> But it's if there is a Mr. Liry has asked for directors and above um for us to >> to just provide the >> to provide the bar like the the job description, the application resume as a separate agenda item pulled off of the personnel matters. It would still be on the consent agenda. It would just be listed as a separate item. >> We don't have a a a policy around that. The policy I was referring to that would have to be changed is if you wanted to
085do something different with job descriptions. Gotcha. >> Okay. >> So, um I'm g can can we can we like table that decision for just a couple of minutes because I I want to be respectful of our time and I know that salary was like a big conversation and there was some questions about um comparisons. So, I just want to very quickly um I'm going to try to go through this as quickly as I can. Just letting you know. So, um, so this is what I did. Um, I reviewed our administrative and support salaries to peer districts. And when I talk about peer districts, I'm talking about, um, not necessarily in size, but geographical location, our nephew districts. Um, I did reach out to some districts that I didn't get any information back from, but I'll
086go over that that um that I have. I I looked at their administrative and support salary schedules. There's a lot of differences from district to district um because I and the whole purpose of this is to make sure that we are following our strategic plan which is all about a premier workforce and recruiting developing rewarding and retaining our employees which is really important and provide making sure we are providing competitive salaries for district employees. Um, so the districts that I did compare were most of the Nephac districts. I didn't get something from all of them. And then I looked at um districts that border us and I received um the information from Elatchua, Clay, Duval, Flaggler, and Valuchia. I did not receive St. John's. So they are not included in here. If we want to
087think about similar in size, um, Colombia, Flaggler, and Nassau, but I want to just state as a caution, we cannot just look at districts in size because we compete against Duvall, Clay, Elatchua, Valuchia who are bigger than us, but we have to remain competitive with what they are paying their administrators and their support staff as well. Um I also looked um different districts group their employees differently. So I tried to look at um similar situated positions when I made these comparisons. Um, I focused only on non-bargaining, administrative, and support roles. And I looked at a standardized 260day, 8hour day contract because that's what our 12-month employees have. Um, that's in this category of individuals. I found it very interesting that some districts, their 12-month people work 250 days. There's some districts who some of their
08812-month staff work seven and a half hours. So, I did the math and broke it down by hour and calculated what that comparative salary would be based on 260 days, 8 hours, so that we're kind of looking at apples to apples so that we're really being able to compare the same thing. This is our categories of positions um on our salary support locator. This is one thing that at the next board meeting, you will be receiving several job descriptions that are being updated because over the years, Jackie and I have been trying to figure out when we started looking, we had some executive secretary job descriptions that were a level zero, some were a level one, some were a level two. Um, some of our coordinators, same thing, like all over the place. So we
089are working on being very consistent and making sure that within these categories those are the roles. So any of the job descriptions that is not accurate with that level we're going to be bringing that to you because that's compensation. So that would be a change. So when I made these I I tried to look because there was one district that literally had 40 different levels of administrative and support on how they calculate salaries. Um, so I I I tried to group them based on if their executive secretary may have been a level 14, I still grouped them in on the chart as a level one because that's we're comparing to us. Okay, so this is where we were at. We are the top one. Putting them minimum, putting them maximum zero, uh, one to five.
090I did not put zero on here even though it is the support, it is on the support salary locator. We do not have anyone that's at a zero. We have moved everyone up to at least a one. And then you have the different districts. Um you have that information. That's a lot up there. I have some graphs to make it look a little bit better. >> Um minimum salary and and I will tell you um the different colors. That green is your level one or locator one level. Uh the dark blue is twos, orange is three, yellow is four, light blue is five. And so I have plotted that across. You see the districts that I'm comparing. There's 12 other districts with us. This is minimum salary. So this is where we start out. And
091you can look at that. And some of our minimum starts out really like higher than some of the other districts. But then when we get to maximum salary within those categories, you can see that there are definitely some outliers. Um, but you can also see that we're pretty much in right in line with most other districts when you look at that. That's the maximum for each one of those levels. When we look at average, and I did this from um least to greatest. So this is that average minimum. And again, like I said, like we start out really well. Um, we are one of the higher districts out of those who border us and some of the NEPAC districts. Um, when we start out someone on that administrative support, and again, this is from executive
092secretaries. This is an average from executive secretaries all the way to assistant superintendent. Average maximum. We drop down when we look at the average maximum. And you can see like how many other districts have a higher average maximum. And so to me that says we start people out really well, but then there's a lot of compression and they're not there, you know, and that's where we're like we have to really look because in the last five years we have lost several administrator administrative support positions to other districts and to the public sector because of pay. So just some um salary trends at a glance. Um our average administrative salary ranks seventh, highest out of 13 peer districts. Putnham's minimum is fifth. Maximum is eighth. Growth over time is steady, but it's not a standout. Um
093opportunity exists to use step growth as a recruiting tool. And that that's something, you know, we we need to look at. We we have made some great strides over the last two or three years with our administrative salaries, especially our school-based administrators. Um I'm very pleased with like we stand out with other districts. Like we we are not at the bottom when of how we pay our school-based administrators. They they have the hardest job in the district. Um and I just, you know, as a closing thought as we think about salaries, um I just want us to remember that it's not just about a number. We're talking about a person and that person represents our values. That person represents our priorities and it's also about our ability to recruit and retain the very best because
094our students deserve the very best. And I my statement to new employees, my team knows that this is part of that onboarding. It does not matter what position you are in. If you never step foot on a school ground or not, every position that you are in in a school district is impacting the life of a student in one way or another. So, we can't say that we have positions that don't impact students because every position impacts the the success of our students. And and we have to think about that when we're thinking about salary when we know we've already lost people, good people, because of better opportunities. Um, you know, I always like to say grass may look greener, but you never know the size of the septic tank. So, um, and sometimes they
095they find that out and they come back. But it's anytime, you know, I hate seeing people leave. So, again, as far as a consensus of the board, I just need to know the direction for a future board meeting on how that will roll out. Um, I I you know, if if you want something on the agenda, Jackie can get with Susan and and but that that is now up to y'all to make a decision. I have a response to it. >> Go ahead. >> So, and I'll I'll preface this with this disclaimer. This is an AI response from my West Law database. All right. It's pretty reliable, but I always double check it. Um, in Florida, an elected school superintendent cannot appoint assistant superintendents without complying with chapter 1122 of the Florida statutes and obtaining
096schoolboard approval. Chapter 1122 of this Florida statutes outlines the duties of the district school board regarding personnel. The statute requires the district school board to act upon written recommendations from the district school superintendent for positions to be filled and the individuals nominated for those positions. The school board has the authority to reject a nomination for good cause. If the superintendent does not submit nominations in a timely manner or if a third nomination for a position is rejected for good cause, the school board can proceed to fill the position itself. Therefore, the appointment of an assistant superintendent by an elected school superintendent in Florida is subject to the school board's approval based upon the superintendent's written recommendation. So, that's an initial response, but I'll double check it. >> Yes, >> that sounds normal. >> All right,
097M. Um, Miss M. Waters, this is excellent information. Like, Miss Wagner, I've learned a lot. I think the salary information was just right on target. I mean, it really it it tells us right where we are and where we need to be going. Um, any other questions or comments by the board? >> You probably ought to contact the Florida School Board Association and tell them in the next meeting to let every board member know what their responsibilities are related to this so they won't be caught off guard after a few years. Okay. >> All right. >> Do we need to make a consensus before? >> Well, that works. >> You want you rather do a vote on it at a at a regular board meeting as an agenda item or you want to have a
098consensus here? I mean, Mr. Burke's already said he's opposed to it. So, >> well, >> rewriting. You're just rewriting the >> Well, he she says there's no policy. >> There's not a policy on what that written recommendation entails. >> I understand. >> Um what as of right now, written recommendation from the superintendent is in the form of personnel matters with everyone listed. >> What I am hearing is staff to do it >> that that he that Mr. Liry is requesting for directors and above to be pulled out as an individual agenda item with a written recommendation of that appointment from the superintendent attached with a job description, application, and resume. >> My my personal feeling is that I would like to digest. Okay. So, I would say that it needs to be on our next
099they're meeting so that we can find out information. >> Okay. All right. We'll we'll uh put it on the next agenda. >> Last little question. Are we going to need to Well, I guess we could decide that then, but I think even the job uh the policy that you gave us, depending on how we move forward, I think need to be >> the job the policy that I gave you is job descriptions and that's like the changes that's required by job descriptions. And from my understanding, it was consensus that we don't change that policy. What we're what we're looking at changing is the practice of how we do a written recommendation for directors and above. >> Well, and and this may be something for another day, but I I believe and I'll talk to the
100board attorney. I think there's some language in here that conflicts possibly conflicts with the statute. So, I'll get with him and we'll see if that needs to be done >> and that can go through the process of changing a policy. >> Good. Thank you very much. Um, all right. will adjourn adjourn the board workshop and take a fivem minute recess before we start. >> Yes, sir.