Updates on the Fight for Quality Public Education in Brevard County, FL
0:00 music
2:42 Thank you.
7:12 Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
7:14 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
7:21 and to the Republic for
7:24 which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with
7:27 liberty and justice for all.
7:33 All right, before we get started on the first topic, which is
7:37 those policies that we had there, I just want to give everybody
7:41 the update that I asked Rendell, because now we’re getting into
7:44 the staff, and he had mentioned that he had already been working
7:47 on it, that some of these policies, we should not be entertained,
7:50 like, we shouldn’t be in the middle of giving recommendations to
7:53 them, right?
7:54 So what I did, so what I did, so what I did, so what I did was I
7:58 asked if we could have staff get ahead of us and start reviewing
8:01 them so that the process could go a little bit faster, so he had
8:02 said we were already working on that, so thank you, Dr. Rendell,
8:04 for working there.
8:06 The other thing that I was going to mention is, Paul, do you
8:10 have an update on the policies that we already have in place?
8:14 So we did the zeros, the 1,000s, like, where are we at with all
8:16 of that?
8:17 The 1,000s are on for today, for your first review, so they’ll
8:21 be going through rulemaking following this, then the 2s, 3s, and
8:25 5s, which we’ve done, are being reviewed by staff.
8:29 We had a conversation yesterday, we’re going to meet at the
8:32 cabinet level to try and set up who’s doing what, so they can
8:35 get really moving on those.
8:37 Yeah, and I think to all of our staff, we really appreciate you
8:40 going through this, like, I know this is a big pain in the butt,
8:43 but we’re out of compliance for some of these, and I really
8:45 appreciate the time that you guys are spending to it.
8:47 I know you have a million other things going, so thank you,
8:49 thank you, Dr. Rendell, for keeping them on that.
8:52 The other thing I wanted to do is, is everybody okay, so we have
8:55 this work session scheduled, right, then we have the 7,000s,
8:59 then the 8,000, and the 9,000s.
9:03 Are you guys okay for just meeting on every opposite Thursday
9:06 through September to get it done?
9:09 Tuesday.
9:09 I’m sorry, Tuesday, sorry.
9:10 Yes.
9:11 Does that make sense?
9:12 We’re all okay, I just wanted to make sure we’re still on board.
9:14 Okay.
9:16 Yep.
9:16 So, not the 5th, because that’s the week we have our school
9:19 board meeting on Thursday, right?
9:21 Right.
9:21 Not next Tuesday.
9:22 Correct.
9:23 But the…
9:24 Right.
9:24 Would it be the 12th?
9:26 It would be, good question, Ms. Campbell.
9:28 Yes.
9:29 So, I would say it would be…
9:31 And then the 26th.
9:31 The 12th and the 26th.
9:33 So, the 12th, we would try to get through the 7,000s.
9:36 The 26th, we would try to get through the 8,000s.
9:39 I have the college fair that’s at the north end of the county,
9:42 is on the 26th at 9 a.m.
9:45 So, as long as…
9:46 Go in the afternoon, maybe?
9:47 Well, there’s two different…
9:48 There’s morning and evening, I think.
9:50 Yes.
9:51 So, I would just miss the morning session, I guess.
9:54 But that’s okay.
9:56 If I need to be here, I’ll be here.
9:57 And then the 3rd.
9:58 That’s also my husband’s birthday, but, you know.
10:01 Okay.
10:01 So…
10:02 Then our next board meeting is the 10th, so we could actually do
10:05 the 3rd, also.
10:06 Yeah.
10:06 I think if you guys are okay with doing the 12th, the 19th, and
10:11 the 3rd.
10:12 The 19th is the board meeting.
10:13 I’m sorry, the 12th, the 26th.
10:15 And it wouldn’t be the 3rd, it would be the 10th.
10:17 It’s the 3rd because the board meeting is on the 10th.
10:20 Yeah.
10:22 Yeah, we can slide it in.
10:23 There’s two in a row.
10:24 Okay.
10:24 If you guys are okay with that, kind of from a 30,000 foot view.
10:28 Yes.
10:28 Do we need to just forget the 26th?
10:31 And just do the 3rd?
10:32 No, because we need that extra.
10:34 We need that extra.
10:35 Why are you not connected?
10:36 I don’t want to miss an opportunity.
10:38 If we’ve got a Tuesday open, we’ve got to take it.
10:41 Yeah, I mean, I’m fine for those days.
10:43 Like I said, the only time that I have is the college fair, but,
10:46 again, there’s two sessions
10:47 for that, so I can just attend.
10:48 Maybe we just have the college fair here.
10:50 No.
10:50 I don’t think that they will appreciate you moving all that
10:53 around, but that’s okay.
10:55 We’ll work it out.
10:56 But as long as tentatively those dates we can work to, we can
10:58 try to figure out schedules
10:59 and stuff like that.
11:00 We do have to check in with Ms. Jenkins to make sure that her
11:02 schedule is accommodating,
11:04 but I think that that’s good.
11:05 Okay.
11:06 So everybody’s okay with that from a 30,000 foot view?
11:08 Thank you, Dr. Rendell, for working through those other
11:10 components.
11:11 Thank you, staff, for dealing with going through all of these
11:13 board policies.
11:14 So that brings us to the agenda.
11:16 First topic is a review of board policies 1001 through 1470.
11:21 Okay.
11:23 So there’s a couple of ways to do this.
11:25 This is 149 pages, right?
11:27 These are things that we’ve already gone through.
11:30 Do you guys want me to go through each one, or do you guys want
11:33 to just say, hey, we’re
11:34 okay, we’ve reviewed them, and now we’re ready to take it to the
11:37 next step?
11:38 I just made a list of the things I had a couple of questions
11:41 about, and it’s not a huge amount.
11:43 So whatever you think is most beneficial.
11:46 I don’t know.
11:46 Ms. Campbell, did you do the same?
11:47 Yeah.
11:47 I had one, and then I figured out the answer for myself this
11:50 morning, and I’m good.
11:52 Okay.
11:52 With the ones that are here, the only question I had was, what
11:56 about policy 1242?
11:57 Because that was one that we talked about, and it’s not in this
12:00 list, and it also had
12:01 a Neola update this year, so I didn’t see that.
12:04 Do you know why?
12:05 Is 1242 coming back to us at a different time?
12:08 I’m sorry.
12:11 Give me a moment like that.
12:13 Yeah.
12:13 Jean, are you okay?
12:14 It’s not on our 1,000s.
12:16 Yeah, I just, I mean, it was just a question, really.
12:18 So on page 38, and staff might be able to answer this.
12:22 Under section five, we-
12:25 Hang on, hang on.
12:25 Ms. Campbell, you had 1230, 1242.
12:28 Paul’s checking it.
12:29 Okay, so she’s checking 1242.
12:31 12, what was the page number?
12:33 It was page number 38.
12:35 Okay.
12:35 And I just, this is just a general question that I had.
12:38 So we refer to things as job descriptions multiple times, and
12:43 for some reason, on this specific
12:45 policy, we changed it to job specification.
12:47 Oh, I saw that.
12:49 And I was wondering what the reason is on why we didn’t stay
12:51 consistent with
12:52 description versus specification.
12:54 I think that, again, that’s a major.
12:56 I think that Neola uses specification.
13:01 But I think, but we, I think job description, actually.
13:06 Neola’s not always right.
13:07 We found errors.
13:12 Yeah, we have.
13:13 Like even like spelling and grammatical errors in there before.
13:15 It’s been a while.
13:16 But what do you, are you, what do you think about that, Paul?
13:20 I’m fine with whatever you guys want to go with.
13:22 We can make it consistent with job description if you want.
13:24 I think that it would be smart to keep it consistent.
13:26 Yeah.
13:26 Because it says specification on the next line, so.
13:29 But then in the evaluation of the superintendent, which is 1040,
13:33 on page 72, it goes to.
13:36 Some of those job descriptions, though, have different sections.
13:38 Yeah.
13:39 Like.
13:39 Good point.
13:40 The job description overall is called the job description.
13:42 But there’s specifications, and then there’s requirements, and
13:45 essential functions and things.
13:47 So that’s why it might be broken down into specifications.
13:50 So I just take a look at it for us.
13:51 Right.
13:51 And if it needs to be cleaned up to go.
13:52 Yeah.
13:52 But I agree.
13:53 I feel like if we’re about to, you know, when we did our very
13:56 recent search for a new superintendent,
13:58 that was one of the things we looked at was specifically the job
14:01 description.
14:01 Yeah.
14:02 And then we had the specifications and all of that.
14:05 So I agree.
14:07 I think we just need to go back to what we had before.
14:10 Okay.
14:11 And then the only other one I had, and I just want, I want
14:14 clarification on this, really,
14:16 from a public standpoint, but page 137, item number two, under
14:19 records and reports.
14:25 This speaks to the fact of withholding certain information from
14:28 a parent, and I would like someone
14:34 to clarify, I guess, the reason why we would do that, and is
14:38 that still legal in today’s
14:41 day and age where the laws have recently changed?
14:43 Awkward silence.
14:51 We’re looking at it.
14:53 Right.
14:54 I’m just reading it.
14:55 I think there’s some cases where DCF, you know, type situations
15:02 where, or investigations.
15:04 That’s exactly what the language is referring to in case it’s a
15:11 possible abuse situation or
15:15 anything like that.
15:15 So just to cover us, would it be okay to revise the policy to
15:19 make sure that it’s very clearly
15:21 stated that in cases of DCF or abuse or things of that nature,
15:24 that, those would be the only
15:26 circumstances that we would withhold that type of information.
15:30 It just, it’s written so vaguely right now that if you just flip
15:33 to this policy, you’re
15:34 like, wait a minute, we’re going to withhold information from a
15:38 parent regarding services to
15:42 support mental, physical, or emotional well-being of a parent’s
15:45 minor child.
15:46 So like the, that, that’s a, it’s very alarming to me.
15:49 So I think if I understand the need to withhold that information,
15:53 especially when you’re talking
15:54 about maybe a child comes forward and says that they’re being
15:56 abused in the home, then
15:57 obviously an investigation has to get launched and there’s,
16:00 there’s a process there.
16:01 But I just think this policy should be written in a way that
16:03 clearly says that that really
16:05 is the only time that we withhold information and in an effort
16:08 to protect the child’s wellbeing.
16:10 Right.
16:11 Yeah.
16:12 Paul, do you have any idea how we can wordsmith that?
16:16 Yeah.
16:17 I’ll pull the statute.
16:18 And if the board wants to add, like in cases of concerns
16:22 regarding, I think the language is
16:23 abuse, abandonment and neglect, we can withhold that, but I’ll
16:27 make it mirror the statute.
16:28 Okay.
16:29 Yeah.
16:30 That would be good.
16:31 Thank you.
16:32 Okay.
16:33 Do you feel, you’re good about that?
16:38 Yes.
16:39 I’m good.
16:40 Those are the only things I had in this section of going through
16:45 all these policies.
16:46 Okay.
16:47 And then mine was just on 1242.
16:49 I don’t know if Paul has a answer yet, but that was the one that
16:54 we had there potentially
16:56 some obsolete language and it also refers to going back to our
17:01 policy 1242.
17:03 Right.
17:04 It also refers to school board policy 1220, which we don’t have.
17:15 So needs to be fixed either way.
17:16 I’m not sure how that happened.
17:18 Sorry.
17:19 I’m trying to track with you right now and I’m not.
17:22 So there’s a professional development policy 1242.
17:27 And when we went through originally, I went and checked the
17:33 minutes.
17:34 I don’t know if I still have them pulled up, but we talked about
17:38 it and it needs some updates.
17:41 And it was also included in the, this 2023 package.
17:44 What page are you on in this group?
17:45 Sorry.
17:46 It’s not in the package.
17:47 That’s the whole point is it didn’t get included.
17:49 Okay.
17:50 That’s why I’m like, I don’t know.
17:51 I know.
17:54 Well, I had, I had, I was going back and looking at my notes
17:56 from the last time making sure those
17:57 changes were in there and 1242 for some reason didn’t end up in
17:59 this package.
18:00 So we just need to make sure that it, okay.
18:02 Okay.
18:03 Because it has some, because I think there might be some
18:05 language that’s obsolete as far
18:07 as the, in the second paragraph.
18:11 And then also it refers to policy 1220, which we don’t have.
18:15 So we need to, and then like I said, there was, this year there
18:18 was some updates listed
18:19 in the NEOLA updates.
18:20 So we definitely want 1242 to come back to us.
18:23 Outside of this package is fine, but we definitely want it to
18:25 come back.
18:26 Okay.
18:33 That’s all I had.
18:34 Good.
18:35 Yep.
18:36 Everybody good on zero through 1470?
18:40 1001 through 1470?
18:41 I am.
18:42 Yep.
18:43 Okay.
18:44 With that.
18:45 All right.
18:46 The next topic is the review of board policy 0100 definitions.
18:48 Does anybody have any questions on that one?
18:50 I did.
18:51 Okay.
18:52 Why did we strike the definition of relative?
18:55 We have it in there and we took it out.
18:57 And I’m not really sure.
18:58 Is that because we’re broadening the definition or?
19:01 That, um, NEOLA didn’t include it.
19:04 The only thing I can think of is we, how we do our, um, if it,
19:13 it might relate to how
19:14 we do our absences, um, or leaves.
19:20 But I don’t, but it, that one, NEOLA doesn’t include the
19:25 definition of relative.
19:27 Should it mirror what our, I think it should, I think it should
19:33 be included, right?
19:35 I mean, to some degree or?
19:37 Well, relatives are, they’re, all of those, even parent are
19:41 defined in statutes in multiple
19:43 places and they’re never consistent.
19:45 Okay.
19:46 So they probably, NEOLA probably just pulled it because you
19:49 should use whatever you’re
19:51 looking for.
19:52 So if you’re in the 39 chapter of statutes, you might get one
19:56 definition of relative versus
19:58 the 1001 section of the statutes, you’re going to get another
20:01 definition.
20:02 So whatever statute you’re applying.
20:04 Okay.
20:05 You have to use the definition that’s in that chapter for
20:08 application of relative.
20:10 Okay.
20:11 I’m wondering in our, um, collective bargaining agreements, if,
20:14 because we have had that conversation
20:16 about what can be a paid leave versus not paid leave.
20:21 Um, as long as we didn’t say in that, cause this says, or
20:24 whatever’s defined in the contract,
20:27 right?
20:28 Um, did we put something in the contract that says whatever’s
20:31 defined in policy?
20:32 Ryan shaking his head no.
20:34 Yeah.
20:35 We’ll, we’ll use one policy and I believe it’s close relative
20:39 and it’s in policy.
20:40 Okay.
20:41 But then we don’t define what close relatives are.
20:44 Right.
20:45 So, but if they’re not relying on this policy, then it doesn’t
20:49 matter.
20:50 Okay.
20:51 These definitions are designed to apply to all of our policies.
20:57 So do we need it?
21:02 So then we would need it.
21:03 If you guys want it in there, we can stick it back in there.
21:06 I think it just got removed because Neola removed it at some
21:09 point from their definitions.
21:10 I think if it references it in our contract, then we should have
21:14 the definition of what it
21:16 is somewhere.
21:17 Okay.
21:18 What was there or do you want to use?
21:20 The question is going to become what definition of relative do
21:22 you want to use?
21:24 Yeah.
21:25 I mean, I would say, I think we need to have the definition
21:26 there and I think the one that’s
21:27 there is fine.
21:28 So you’re saying to keep it there.
21:29 Paul, you had to add a, you’re saying to keep it there.
21:31 I mean, I would say, I think we need to have the definition
21:34 there and I think the one that’s
21:35 there is fine.
21:36 So you’re saying to keep it there.
21:36 Paul, you had to add a, you’re pulling it up to take a look at
21:36 it.
21:36 Mr. Trent, you okay with keeping the definition?
21:37 Okay.
21:39 That’s fine.
21:40 I’m okay too.
21:40 That’s four of us, Paul.
21:40 There’s no legal.
21:41 That’s fine.
21:42 I’m okay too.
21:43 That’s four of us, Paul.
21:44 If there’s no legal hold back, you know what I mean?
21:45 I think that we’re okay.
21:46 Yeah.
21:47 We can put it in there.
21:48 Okay.
21:50 That’s fine.
21:51 I’m okay too.
21:52 That’s four of us, Paul.
21:53 There’s no legal hold back.
21:54 You know what I mean?
21:55 I think that we’re okay.
21:56 Yeah.
21:57 We can put it in there.
21:59 Okay.
22:01 That’s fine.
22:02 I’m okay too.
22:03 That’s four of us, Paul.
22:04 There’s no legal hold back.
22:05 You know what I mean?
22:06 I think that we’re okay.
22:07 Yeah.
22:08 We can put it in there.
22:09 Okay.
22:10 I’m okay too.
22:11 Okay.
22:13 We can put it in there.
22:16 And I can check statute and try and make sure it’s-
22:20 Or can you just add a line in there that says ORAS defined?
22:23 At least somewhat consistent with statute.
22:25 Right.
22:26 There’s a lot of policies that have the word relative in it.
22:30 Yeah.
22:31 I mean, I’ll work on it.
22:32 Okay.
22:33 Thank you.
22:35 Okay.
22:36 We’re okay from there?
22:37 Sorry.
22:38 I’m the pain about this morning.
22:39 Did you get the direction you needed, Mr. Gibbs?
22:40 Yeah.
22:41 Okay.
22:42 Thank you very much.
22:43 The next one up is the next topic is a review of board policy 0118,
22:46 philosophy of the board.
22:47 If you look at this, it’s an update from Neola.
22:49 Yes.
22:50 I think we’re in a good place.
22:51 Yeah, this is the one that we had to pull with the zeros because
22:54 we got the wrong one
22:55 attached.
22:56 Yes.
22:57 Yep.
22:59 The needs and desires.
23:00 They’re both in there now.
23:01 Right.
23:02 Correct.
23:03 We’re good.
23:04 Anybody wish to make any changes on this?
23:06 Do not.
23:07 No?
23:08 Nope.
23:09 Ms. Campbell?
23:10 Okay.
23:11 Moving on.
23:12 The next topic is review of board policy 3232 political
23:13 activities.
23:13 I looked over that.
23:14 It seems like it’s pretty straightforward as far as mirroring
23:17 the Neola template.
23:18 Does anybody have any other issues that they would like to add
23:22 to that?
23:23 Nope.
23:25 I was fine with this one.
23:26 Mr. Trent, you’re good?
23:27 Okay.
23:28 Next topic is a review of board policy 3126, direct contact
23:33 communicable diseases.
23:35 Is everybody okay with that or do you want to wish to speak to
23:38 it?
23:38 Yes.
23:39 So this would kind of go hand in hand with what I had brought up
23:41 before about the last
23:42 board meeting on direction that was given out.
23:45 So this was a, you know, we’re repealing the COVID really.
23:49 I mean, that’s really what it is.
23:50 We can call it.
23:51 Oh, this is not the COVID policy.
23:53 Direct communicable.
23:54 Is it not?
23:55 Yeah.
23:56 This has to do that.
23:57 You know what?
23:58 It’s interesting because when I pulled it up, I’m like, why are
24:00 we repealing this?
24:02 This has to do with like HIV and other, this predated because
24:09 the last time this, this is a Brevard policy from 2008.
24:12 Human bite emergencies.
24:13 There’s more than just the HIV.
24:15 Yeah.
24:16 Okay.
24:17 Sorry.
24:18 This is not the policy that I thought it was.
24:19 So they’re getting rid of it.
24:20 Are we okay with getting rid of it or do you want to keep it?
24:23 Well, it’s, hang on.
24:24 So, yeah.
24:25 And I went back and looked in the minutes and the minutes it
24:28 said we wanted to rescind it.
24:30 I didn’t go back and watch the video, but there’s, it is also a
24:35 Brevard policy.
24:37 So does that mean there’s not a Neola one?
24:39 It may be a Neola one as well, but it may have been contained
24:42 somewhere else.
24:43 I can go back and watch and see what the discussion was.
24:46 Yeah.
24:47 But if you, if we were thinking that this was a COVID policy, we
24:50 never actually had a COVID policy outside of the mask policy.
24:53 I don’t think we didn’t have anything.
24:56 We had some procedures and, or in some guidelines and stuff, but
24:59 this, this was, this predates COVID.
25:01 Yep.
25:02 And we, I, and I’m pretty sure that.
25:06 Um, so it’s part of the board is also committed to ensuring the
25:11 confidential status of individuals who may have been diagnosed
25:15 with a bloodborne communicable disease.
25:16 I mean, all those things are still going to apply.
25:18 So before we pull this and face a lot of backlash, potentially,
25:23 we probably should, um, take another look.
25:27 Well, I think staff should have already looked back to see if
25:30 this was illegal or anything like that.
25:31 And if we can, Paul, if you want to have staff look it over to
25:33 make sure that it, some of these that we know are pertinent to
25:36 our school system, we can make sure that it’s somewhere else.
25:39 And if not, bring it back.
25:41 Does that make sense?
25:42 Yeah.
25:43 And they noted on their form that there’s no comparable Neola
25:45 policies.
25:46 Hmm.
25:47 With, with staff not giving a direction on this though, they
25:53 should.
25:54 Well, the direction of the board was to repeal.
25:56 Right.
25:57 We have to go back and watch the meeting to see why we send it.
26:01 But just for a process perspective, when the board makes a
26:04 decision to go and do something, sometimes staff come back and
26:07 say,
26:07 Hey, here’s why we have that and stuff like that.
26:09 So I haven’t seen anything come back from staff.
26:11 So what I’m saying is, is that if we can pause, give a, give an
26:14 opportunity for them to look at it and bring it back.
26:16 Yeah.
26:17 There’s a really long procedure that, I mean, that’s tied to
26:20 this.
26:21 So I think we need to look at this one before we repeal this one
26:24 a hundred percent.
26:25 Yep.
26:26 Yeah.
26:27 I, I agree.
26:28 I, I don’t, I, without remembering the conversation.
26:31 I don’t either.
26:32 I was going through this.
26:33 It’s like, why are we repealing this?
26:34 I thought we were repealing the COVID policy.
26:35 So that’s why that’s the only one I really actively remember
26:37 saying, Hey, we need to get rid of this policy.
26:39 So I need to go back and look at it, honestly, to, to watch what
26:42 we were discussing at that time.
26:43 Just so everybody understands we are, you know, anything that we
26:47 go ahead and bring forward, it still has to come before the
26:50 board for two more meetings.
26:52 Right.
26:53 You know what I mean?
26:54 So Paul, if there’s good direction on the back end, you can just
26:57 bring it back.
26:58 Can we bring this one back at the next workshop?
26:59 Is that okay?
27:00 Can we push it down the line?
27:01 That will give us time to go back and.
27:02 Yeah.
27:03 If it were rulemaking, it would come before you for public
27:06 hearing next.
27:07 So I should know by then whether we want to keep it.
27:11 If the staff are saying, let’s keep it, I can just pull it off
27:14 rulemaking and it’d stay in existence.
27:16 Okay.
27:17 But I’d say if there’s, if there’s standards that are required
27:21 that we don’t have spelled out in the same way in another policy,
27:24 we probably need to hang on to it.
27:26 But if, I mean, if we do have it somewhere else, then we can
27:28 repeal it because maybe it’s redundant, which is fine.
27:30 We can go back and watch the video too and see what the
27:33 discussion was on why to repeal it.
27:35 I don’t remember having an in depth discussion about this, but
27:37 there’s been a lot that’s happened.
27:38 So.
27:39 Okay.
27:40 So we’re all good with that direction.
27:41 So just to clarify, we’re going to keep it in the queue.
27:46 It’ll stay on rulemaking until we verify.
27:48 Okay.
27:49 Why it was being rescinded and if staff wants to keep it.
27:52 Okay.
27:54 So the next one up is the political activities.
28:01 The next topic is review of policy 3232 political activities.
28:04 If you guys look at it, it deals.
28:05 I think it’s 3575.
28:06 3575.
28:09 Yeah.
28:10 Candidates for public office.
28:11 Yeah.
28:12 We did 32, whatever that one was.
28:13 Okay.
28:14 Hang on just a second.
28:15 Yeah.
28:16 3575 candidates for public office.
28:19 This is the one that said that we had to notify the board and
28:21 everybody else that if you’re
28:22 running for political office, take the, all candidates for
28:26 public office may take personal leave without pay for 30 days
28:29 prior to the election.
28:31 We had decided that we, that this was not something that we
28:34 wanted to move forward on, but.
28:36 No.
28:37 Actually, Mr. Susan, the, we’re repealing this one and the next
28:40 one because 3232 has them all
28:42 together.
28:43 Right.
28:45 3575 and 3580.
28:46 We’re doing one policy for political activities rather than two
28:50 separate ones.
28:51 And it.
28:52 Sounds good.
28:53 So everybody okay with 3575 being repealed?
28:55 Mm-hmm.
28:56 Add it to 3580.
28:57 All right.
28:58 Next topic of review is 3580, supporting the public candidates.
29:03 So this one on here says that we’re rescinding this one as well.
29:05 Right.
29:06 Because all that information is also in 3232.
29:09 Okay.
29:10 Just a second to get rid of all of these.
29:12 I know.
29:13 Pinging back and forth.
29:14 Just a second.
29:15 Okay.
29:17 So we have now gone through all the first, now all we have to do
29:29 is move on to the 6,000,
29:30 right?
29:31 Everybody okay with that?
29:32 Mm-hmm.
29:33 All right.
29:34 Let me just take a second.
29:35 Can I just ask one question just going back?
29:36 And I know I’m circling back.
29:37 I just want to make sure with us having a policy on here that is
29:42 in the status of rescinding
29:44 and keeping it on there, that means it moves to public hearing
29:48 next.
29:49 Right.
29:50 It’s going to stay in the process until that final meeting it’s
29:53 a policy on the books.
29:54 Even if it’s in the process of being rescinded.
29:57 Okay.
29:58 And I’m just thinking to, because there could be some real
30:01 public outrage over rescinding
30:03 this policy, coming forward to speaking about it at the next
30:05 meeting.
30:06 We’ll know before to get it pulled off the agenda.
30:08 Okay.
30:09 All right.
30:10 Oh, you mean the –
30:11 I’m just concerned about that.
30:12 Yeah, I am.
30:13 Okay.
30:14 That’s fine.
30:15 Like is it beneficial to just push it down to the next workshop
30:16 rather than – I don’t
30:18 know.
30:19 Okay.
30:20 But if you’re saying –
30:21 We’ll check it.
30:22 Okay.
30:23 All right.
30:24 Okay.
30:25 So now we’re on to 6,000 policies.
30:27 So let me just get set up for this because we’ve got –
30:30 It’s not a whole bunch.
30:32 Mrs. Campbell.
30:33 Yeah.
30:34 - Because Ms. Rashida loves me. Thank you. See, I got my setup
30:44 here.
30:46 - Yeah, because we have the updated. - Yeah, I just got to get
30:51 all this, give me just a second.
30:53 - No worries, I’m doing the same thing. - How many towers?
31:03 - How many tabs can you open on your computer before it’s like,
31:07 uh-uh.
31:10 - Oh man, now I have to read my handwriting.
31:17 - Uh-oh. - Three thousandths.
31:21 - I think that word is detailed. - Alright, so that’s one
31:24 thousandths.
31:25 Sorry, I had so many darn things opened up here.
31:28 Okay, so there’s the, I’m gonna go back here to this.
31:35 - We have six thousandths.
31:40 Alright.
31:42 This may have five days.
31:45 And this may have six percent.
31:48 - She does have them attached, both of them to the agenda.
31:53 - I know.
31:54 You just hang on, I gotta process here.
31:56 I gotta go back.
31:57 Alright, here we go.
32:04 - I’m not sure this isn’t updated.
32:05 Alright, so now I have the Neola templates that should have been
32:08 updated.
32:08 I have our policies.
32:09 And then I have the ones that just came down the pipe from July.
32:13 So we have it all kind of here.
32:14 So the first one that we have is uniform records and accounts.
32:19 - Neola’s policy is significantly different than ours.
32:22 - Yep.
32:23 - Let’s see here.
32:26 - It lists the…
32:28 - Yeah, they have a more recent update.
32:30 And they’re more detailed.
32:33 We had to make a decision on the audits.
32:37 And this one, we have the first option.
32:41 Because we, with an internal auditor or an independent CPA firm.
32:46 So…
32:47 And also, but we also don’t have policy 6830.
32:51 So we would need to make some adjustments.
32:54 Unless we’re gonna add 6830.
32:57 That’s at the end.
33:02 I don’t know if we’re gonna get to those today.
33:03 But we have a…
33:04 Our audit policy is like…
33:06 And it’s different numbers from there.
33:08 And that’s gonna be when we get to the end of 6000s.
33:10 But whatever we do for 6830,
33:12 it needs to line up with the correct policy.
33:14 If we change ours.
33:15 - When I looked at the 6100,
33:16 the one thing I did like is the method of accounting.
33:18 Had the non-dispersible fund balance,
33:20 restriction of fund balance,
33:21 committed fund balance,
33:22 assigned fund balance,
33:23 unassigned fund balance.
33:24 You know what I mean inside there?
33:26 We do that to a degree.
33:28 But it’s not in policy here.
33:30 I think it would be nice to add that to policy.
33:32 But I think I’m okay with this policy and EOLA template.
33:38 But I want to hear from…
33:39 You know what I mean?
33:40 I want to say, okay,
33:41 this looks good from the 30,000 foot view.
33:43 But I would like to give it to Ms. Lisinski
33:45 to make any kind of recommendations that she would add back.
33:48 If that’s okay.
33:49 Yep.
33:50 It needs to be updated.
33:51 Yeah.
33:52 So, Ms. Lisinski, I don’t want to get ourselves to say,
33:57 we want this and then it go against some of the audit policies
34:00 and stuff like that.
34:00 So, I think as we go through these, I think the board will say,
34:03 hey, this looks good as a policy.
34:05 But if you can come back with anything that says we can’t do
34:08 that because of this.
34:09 You know what I mean?
34:10 There’s this.
34:11 If you can give us that guidance, that would be tremendous for
34:14 us.
34:14 Is that okay?
34:16 All right.
34:17 Is our inventory…
34:18 This is just a general question.
34:19 I don’t know.
34:20 And maybe there’s an answer that’s easy.
34:21 But the warehouse stock, the inventory that’s done annually, is
34:24 that published anywhere publicly?
34:26 Yep.
34:27 I don’t know that it’s published anywhere that you can get it
34:31 easily, but I’m sure it’s attainable.
34:33 Public record.
34:34 Yeah.
34:35 Okay.
34:36 I was just curious if that’s something that’s easily obtained
34:39 from a voter standpoint.
34:40 So…
34:41 There’s a list QR code and everything over $1,000.
34:45 All right.
34:46 So if we’re okay with sending 6100 uniform records and accounts
34:49 to Ms. Leszynski the way that it is currently under the NEOLA
34:53 template, I think we’re in a good place.
34:54 Using the internal auditor, not the office of audit.
34:58 Yes.
34:59 We don’t want…
35:00 We would rather our internal auditors here.
35:03 Okay.
35:04 Next one up is 6105 authorization to use facsimile signatures.
35:11 NEOLA doesn’t have an update since ours.
35:14 I think ours is pretty good.
35:15 Yeah.
35:16 We have this one checked off as being good.
35:18 Yep.
35:19 I’m okay with continuing with the current one that we have.
35:24 To leave current…
35:25 There’s an update, 6105, from the board, from this one that’s a
35:32 little bit different.
35:35 Different.
35:36 Do you see it?
35:38 6105, yeah.
35:39 6105.
35:40 It was NEOLA updated it in 2013.
35:43 It’s got about two more statutory references.
35:45 And on top of it, it has some of the other checklists.
35:48 Well, the checklists are things for us to choose from because of
35:52 who we can…
35:53 But what I’m saying, when I say I’m fine with it as it is, is
35:56 who we have chosen from who
35:57 can sign, whose signature can be on that is fine.
35:59 Yep.
36:00 If you want to send it back so we can get extra legal references.
36:03 No, what I’d like to do is just make sure that, yeah, we always
36:07 want to add the legal references
36:08 to it because that’s part of the recommended policy.
36:11 But what I’d like to do is give it back to Ms. Losinski to make
36:13 any recommendations that
36:14 she would like to see inside there and bring it back to us.
36:16 Does that make sense?
36:17 Yes.
36:18 I like the option on here where we ask for an enhanced signature
36:22 on any transaction amount
36:23 over a certain dollar amount.
36:25 I think that’s good.
36:26 Just as a…
36:27 I don’t think we have that.
36:29 We don’t.
36:30 That’s what I’m saying.
36:31 Is there on the Neal a template there where you can select that?
36:33 The only thing about that is I’m not sure how much we’re
36:38 actually signing checks.
36:41 I mean, we’re sending…
36:42 Ms. Cindy would probably know that more, so…
36:44 Yeah.
36:45 So I would hate to add something in policy that says…
36:47 Where is that part where it says that?
36:49 It’s towards the bottom of…
36:51 You have to hand sign a check over a certain amount when we’re
36:59 doing wires
37:00 and things like that.
37:01 Or, I mean, even the idea of the multiple signatures being
37:05 required for transactions over a certain
37:07 dollar amount.
37:08 I think that’s a good safeguard too, just to make sure that
37:10 there’s a check and balance on…
37:13 Ms. Cindy, can you shed some light on that for us?
37:17 What’s the biggest check you’ve ever signed?
37:19 That’s awesome.
37:20 There we go.
37:21 Biggest check I’ve ever signed?
37:24 My mortgage, maybe.
37:25 Okay.
37:26 Cindy’s name is not on the list of people who can sign checks.
37:30 I think, Ms. Wright, that may cause some process issues because
37:38 with the handwriting signature,
37:41 we’re trying to move away from all of the very, very manual
37:44 things, but we do have internal controls
37:48 of, you know, there’s three different people that have to look
37:51 at it from different departments,
37:53 but I can give you more specifics on that.
37:56 Okay.
37:57 Yeah.
37:58 In other words, it would be taking us back to…
37:59 Yeah.
38:00 We’re trying to move forward and I think that would also…
38:03 Yeah, it would cause some issues with just trying to get our
38:09 payments out and working with procurement
38:14 with the vendors.
38:15 What about the multiple signatures for certain checks and like
38:18 in excess of $50,000?
38:20 Do we currently have that practice in place?
38:22 I will have to go back and ask if we do.
38:26 Okay.
38:27 Ms. Lisinski, I think what Ms. Wright is getting at is that we
38:30 had some sort of check and balance,
38:32 right?
38:33 Yeah.
38:34 So like the concern is…
38:35 But I’m under the understanding that anything over the dollar
38:38 amount, I think it’s like
38:39 36,000 has to be gone out, go out for bid and anything over
38:43 under 50,000 like the superintendent
38:46 has the opportunity to do.
38:47 But we put in place the under $50,000 to have some sort of board
38:52 recognition of those.
38:54 I think there’s some other things in place too, that if this is
38:58 a big burden, I think that
39:00 there’s a check and balance coming through the board for those.
39:03 I think anything over a certain amount is automatically going to
39:06 come in a contract to the school board.
39:08 This is just the payment though.
39:09 I think probably…
39:10 This is the payment.
39:11 Yeah, I think it would probably be good to have a conversation
39:14 with, if you’d like to
39:15 have a conversation with RSM because they’re doing our…
39:20 No, actually who’s our…
39:21 RSM.
39:22 Correct.
39:23 But who’s our other one that does like the budget one?
39:26 Car race.
39:27 Yeah.
39:30 To have those conversations about…
39:31 Because they’re checking.
39:32 If we don’t have those checks, what you’re wanting is
39:34 accountability and checks and balances.
39:36 Right.
39:37 But if we have those, it’s industry standard in electronic
39:40 formats.
39:41 Right.
39:42 It’s not the old…
39:43 Right, right.
39:44 The standard used to be multiple people signing a check.
39:46 Yes.
39:47 But we’re in the 21st century and we’re not doing that that way
39:50 anymore.
39:51 But it doesn’t mean there aren’t standard the checks and
39:53 balances.
39:54 So it would probably be good to have a conversation with the auditors.
39:56 And I know Laura Manlow from RSM is always open to whatever
39:59 phone…
40:00 She will pick up the phone anytime that we need her to just
40:03 understand that from a current
40:06 standpoint.
40:07 What is industry standard for?
40:08 What are those checks and balances?
40:09 Because we know Cindy’s got them.
40:11 Right.
40:12 And the AG came recently and reviewed our procedures.
40:16 I just don’t have it on the top of my head of exactly how we do
40:20 that.
40:21 But I know that we’re very vigilant in making sure that we are
40:25 internal controls.
40:26 And I’ll get the process to you.
40:28 Okay, if you would.
40:29 Okay.
40:30 And then if we don’t have something in place currently, excuse
40:34 me, that calls for multiple signatures.
40:35 And I mean I understand it could be an electronic signature or
40:38 approval so to speak on a deposit.
40:41 That might be a good policy to put in place as just again
40:44 another check and balance.
40:45 And they put it here in the Neola template.
40:47 So that leads me to believe that this is probably something that
40:50 a lot of school boards are using
40:51 or doing just to make sure.
40:53 Sounds like we’re doing it already anyways.
40:54 We are.
40:55 Yes.
40:56 But I’m just, but not the blue ink.
40:57 Right.
40:58 We’re trying to get away from the.
40:59 Right, right, right.
41:00 So I guess when you say, okay, signatures by hand, we’ll x-nay
41:04 that one.
41:05 Well, Neola’s update is also 10 years old.
41:08 Yeah.
41:09 How much the world has changed in the last 10 years.
41:11 The world has changed in 10 years.
41:12 But just that multiple people are going through the approval
41:15 process.
41:15 Because we approved the contract.
41:16 That’s right.
41:17 So it’s already gone through all the steps of procurement.
41:18 But as far as the payment goes, I think it’s probably a good.
41:21 Absolutely.
41:22 To look at since we’re doing that.
41:24 And I think if I can verify that we had agreed that the superintendents
41:32 purchases will come
41:33 on some sort of a board agenda item.
41:36 And then also, I think we had discussion wrapped around contract
41:39 renewals.
41:40 So like one of the things I was speaking to, and maybe we have
41:43 to put it on the board for
41:44 more discussion is that hang on, hang on, hang on.
41:47 If we have that policy, then it’s a check and balance is what I’m
41:50 saying.
41:51 So we may not have to get checks that we have to go sign.
41:54 But in procurement, I found out that the renewal of contracts,
41:58 so say our pharmacy renewal, right?
42:01 All of a sudden that can be renewed without coming before the
42:04 board.
42:05 Insurance renewal.
42:06 So after three years, those one and ones that we have on the
42:08 back end.
42:09 So I think we had discussion wrapped around making that come
42:11 before the board.
42:12 But if we need to make it part of discussion, I’d like to do
42:14 that.
42:15 But I think we have checks and balances is what I’m saying, to
42:18 make sure we capture all of those things.
42:19 That’s all.
42:20 So when you’re doing that, just put that into consideration.
42:24 And looking at the annual review.
42:25 I think that’s what we were talking about.
42:26 That really gives us the ability to lay eyes on it.
42:29 It just helps from a board’s perspective to know what’s going on
42:31 and to make sure that we’re
42:32 laying eyes on any kind of things that could potentially go
42:34 sideways.
42:35 I know that everyone does a great job until they don’t.
42:38 And so if we can check it and we can make sure that we’re
42:40 staying on top of it, that helps make sure that we hold our
42:44 district accountable and being responsible.
42:47 Okay.
42:48 All right.
42:49 Are we good?
42:50 61.05.
42:51 Everybody okay?
42:52 Yes.
42:53 You okay, Ms. Osinski?
43:00 You good?
43:01 I didn’t know.
43:02 I was looking down.
43:03 61.07.
43:04 Sorry, we’re going to have to give me a second here.
43:08 There’s 61.07.
43:09 Yeah, Ms. Campbell.
43:10 Ms. Campbell, just hang on just a second.
43:12 All right.
43:13 61.
43:14 I’m not going to say anything essential.
43:15 But I’m introducing, I know, but I’m introducing the topic.
43:18 Just hang on just a second.
43:20 So if you guys look inside of our topic, it’s 61.07.01 electric
43:24 funds transfers.
43:25 If you look at the two that are on the original or the new Neola
43:29 updates, there’s a version one and a version two.
43:32 And then let me make sure that we don’t have a 61.
43:36 There we go.
43:37 So if you look at 61.07, right, version one authorized to accept
43:43 and distribute electronic funds.
43:46 And then the other one, let me see here, is –
43:55 We have version one, but it needs some updating.
43:59 Ms. Campbell, thank you.
44:01 So anyways, if you look at version two that’s up there, it’s a
44:04 very short one.
44:05 It’s not the one that we have.
44:06 If you look at version one, you can see it side by side.
44:10 And you can see that it needs to be updated based upon ours,
44:14 which was 2014.
44:16 Neola has a 2020 template.
44:18 So the current version one is new from 2020.
44:21 It needs to be updated.
44:23 If you guys can look through it, if you don’t have any issues
44:25 with it, then we can move it on to Ms. Nassinsky and staff.
44:31 Did you have anything that you wanted to say about it, Ms.
44:33 Campbell?
44:34 No, it needs to be updated.
44:35 Yep.
44:39 We’re good?
44:40 Good.
44:41 All right.
44:42 So 6107 version one needs to be the one that we choose, Paul.
44:45 And it, it is the 2020 Neola.
44:48 You just sent staff.
44:49 Good.
44:50 All right.
44:51 Yep.
44:52 Okay.
44:53 Next one is 6110 grant funds.
44:58 The one that’s, we call it federal funds.
45:01 They call it grant funds, same kind of thing.
45:04 The one that we have inside of our book was updated in 2002.
45:08 The one that’s inside there now is a 2022 one and is very
45:10 extensive.
45:11 Yes.
45:12 I think that this is one that we would like to give the staff to
45:16 look over, to review, to
45:18 see if they want to make any recommendations.
45:20 Does anybody have anything?
45:21 I mean, it’s a, it’s like four more pages.
45:23 Yeah.
45:24 So are you okay with that Ms. Campbell sending this one in?
45:27 Yeah.
45:28 And actually the next several policies in, not all of them, but
45:31 in the next several policies,
45:32 there are a couple that also have to do with grants.
45:35 So probably need to take a look and see which ones we need.
45:39 I don’t know that we need all of them.
45:40 Cause my question now beside the next five, four is, do we need,
45:43 do we need, do we need?
45:44 Cause I don’t, I don’t know.
45:45 Um, but yeah, this one definitely is more extensive than we have.
45:51 Right.
45:52 Because you have 6111, which is internal controls.
45:55 That one’s not so much.
45:56 But then the next one after that has to do with grants.
45:59 Yeah.
46:00 Um, all right.
46:01 So if we were okay with 6110 going to staff to make sure that
46:05 the new template is, is okay.
46:07 And then bringing that back, that’s good for us.
46:09 Paul, are you okay with that?
46:10 Yep.
46:11 Okay.
46:12 So just to clarify, when we say like this one, for example, just
46:15 run it by staff.
46:16 If we don’t see any problems with it, it just stays in the queue
46:18 and we keep moving.
46:19 That’s it.
46:20 Right.
46:21 Okay.
46:22 If the template’s good, then with staff, we’ll just put it on.
46:23 Yep.
46:24 Just want to make sure.
46:25 Sorry.
46:26 I’ll do a better job of explaining those.
46:27 All right.
46:28 So the next one is we don’t have this policy, but it is in the OLA,
46:32 which is 6111 internal
46:34 controls.
46:35 It goes through about maintaining internal controls over federal
46:37 awards.
46:38 Um, give some good direction on, you know what I mean?
46:41 And some, some suggestions on, um, evaluation and monitoring and
46:45 compliance with state statutes
46:47 and stuff like that.
46:48 Yeah.
46:49 If you guys.
46:50 So it kind of does have to do with grants.
46:51 I take back what I said before.
46:52 I know.
46:53 This one also has to do with grants.
46:54 Well, and it also, it kind of bleeds into some other stuff
46:55 though, I think.
46:56 But yeah.
46:57 I mean, so if you guys are okay with, um, sending this for staff
47:01 to review, um, I’m okay with
47:03 putting it in, but they may say, just like Ms. Campbell said,
47:05 look, this might be something
47:06 that’s already covered in something else.
47:07 Right.
47:08 But I think that this is something that, you know, it looks like
47:11 it would be appropriate.
47:12 Mm-hmm.
47:13 Right.
47:14 And this one, like some of the other ones, cause there’s a lot
47:16 in 6,000s that we don’t
47:17 have.
47:18 Yeah.
47:19 You know, I don’t want to add something that we already have
47:21 covered, but if it’s something,
47:23 and I imagine all these things, just cause we don’t have any
47:24 policy doesn’t mean we’re
47:25 not doing it.
47:26 But if it would be helpful, especially to people on the outside
47:30 looking in that, you
47:31 know, have a clear one place to look to put it in policy for
47:34 staff or from the outside,
47:36 um, then let’s, then let’s add them in.
47:39 But, um, you’re, I was looking at 6,000, man, there’s not very
47:42 many.
47:42 And then if you look at the Neola book, there’s a lot.
47:44 There’s a lot.
47:45 So, um, that’s what I was thinking on some of this.
47:49 Yeah.
47:50 One of the issues that we have is, is that many of our 6,000s
47:53 were not, they’re all from
47:54 2002, 2008, 2014.
47:56 Yeah.
47:57 So they, so there’s probably going to run through a lot of these
47:59 that have been created since
48:00 then that we’re probably needing to add to it.
48:03 So I think that, um, having Ms. Lisinski’s staff look at each
48:06 one of them to make sure
48:07 that there’s no conflict of interest.
48:08 And if there’s not moving forward, cause some of them have like
48:11 statutory, like legal laws
48:13 that are there.
48:14 So we may have to have them added.
48:16 So if you’re okay with having that process with 6-1-1-2 of
48:21 sending to Ms. Lisinski for review,
48:23 and if there’s no objections to bring it back to us, if you’re
48:25 okay with that.
48:26 Yep.
48:27 Okay.
48:28 6-1-1-4 is the next one that is not in our policies, but it is a
48:35 new Neola template.
48:36 It’s cost principles spending federal funds.
48:39 Again, this is another one where I think if we have the, um, you
48:43 know, it’s pretty lengthy
48:44 and it’s kind of considerable amount of, uh, federal statutes
48:48 and laws and stuff attached
48:49 to it.
48:50 So I would like to make sure that we’re within our scope.
48:52 If we can have that sent to Ms. Lisinski and have her review it,
48:56 um, for fidelity and
48:57 then get back to us.
48:58 That’d be fine.
48:59 Are you okay with that Ms. Campbell?
49:00 The next one’s on, on federal funds as well.
49:03 Yeah.
49:04 Six.
49:05 Next one is 6-1-1-6 time and effort reporting.
49:09 Again, it’s got some statutory or federal, um, laws to it.
49:14 I would like to, um, if it’s okay with you guys, push it up to
49:18 Ms. Lisinski for review.
49:19 And if not, you getting this, Paul?
49:22 Yep.
49:23 Okay.
49:24 The good news is most of these things are already being done.
49:25 So I know that’s a little alarming.
49:26 We’re like, Oh, we don’t have this policy or that policy, but
49:28 there are, you guys are
49:29 already doing these things just by nature of what has to be done
49:32 when it comes to federal
49:33 grants.
49:34 So, um, this just helps from a outside perspective to say, Hey,
49:37 we got it in policy.
49:38 We got it covered.
49:39 We’re doing it.
49:40 Absolutely.
49:41 And then, uh, the philosophy that I was told when I got here, um,
49:47 and is it’s in statute,
49:49 it’s in law and we follow these things.
49:51 Um, that doesn’t necessarily need to be in a policy because it’s
49:55 already in the statute,
49:57 but I’m fine with this.
49:59 Yeah.
50:00 Okay.
50:01 So the next one’s kind of wonky.
50:04 Yeah.
50:05 So 6-1-2-0 is, um, safety deposit box.
50:07 First of all, I want to know what school district has a safety
50:08 deposit box.
50:09 Um, but the thing is, is that it’s actually in our, in our
50:13 policy, it’s fund balance.
50:14 So it’s like, so we’re.
50:15 Which is a unique policy.
50:16 So we’re talking about the stuff, the safety deposit box, and
50:20 this is talking about the
50:22 fund balance.
50:23 So, Ms. Lisinski, um.
50:25 And Neola fund balance is $62.35.
50:28 Right.
50:29 So, Ms. Lisinski, are you okay?
50:33 So I, firstly, we should probably decide, do we need a safety
50:38 deposit box policy?
50:38 Right.
50:39 Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on.
50:40 Hang on just a second.
50:41 You know, I can talk too.
50:42 But I’m, I’m just trying to get through the process.
50:43 Just hang on a second.
50:44 Ms. Lisinski, it makes sense for us to move 61-20 that is in our
50:48 current policy to the one
50:49 that Neola does.
50:50 So we’re going to rename it.
50:51 Are you guys okay with that?
50:52 Or renumber it.
50:53 Right.
50:54 Renumber it.
50:55 I’m sorry.
50:56 Renumber it is the first round, getting that taken care of.
50:58 As long as we don’t currently have a 62-35.
51:00 I don’t think we do, but let me just a little check again.
51:02 Well, if we get there, we can look at it then.
51:05 Um, but if you’re okay with rename, renumbering it to that, now
51:08 we can come back to 61-20,
51:11 which is safety deposit box.
51:13 Um, and this talks you guys to the, um, it’s pretty simple,
51:17 right?
51:18 So Ms. Campbell, you had something to say?
51:21 Ms. Campbell?
51:22 I don’t think we need a safety deposit box.
51:25 Do we currently have a safety deposit box at any of our schools?
51:28 Is that something that’s being used?
51:29 I don’t think it’s at a school.
51:30 Or at the bank.
51:31 Yeah, it’s at a bank.
51:32 Or at a bank.
51:33 Sorry.
51:34 Well, we have, uh, we’re all…
51:35 Oh, sorry.
51:37 These are very quiet mics.
51:39 Where the, um, armor card delivers the dollars, it’s in one big
51:45 deposit box.
51:47 But probably not talking about the same thing here.
51:50 No.
51:52 No, it says out of the bank.
51:53 I don’t want a policy saying that we need to have that.
51:54 No.
51:55 We don’t need that.
51:56 But when we, just in case I’m not around, when we get around,
51:59 because we’re moving kind
52:01 of slower than we thought.
52:02 When we get around to 62-35, can we go ahead and talk about our
52:05 61-20, before we, our 61-20,
52:08 before we get off of it?
52:09 Yeah, fund balance.
52:10 So wait, wait, wait, wait.
52:11 Ms. Campbell, you’re saying we want to talk about 61-20 that’s
52:14 currently ours that we’re going to change,
52:16 because that’s an area of concern.
52:17 Right.
52:18 What other ones do you have an area of concern over, besides
52:20 that, so I can make sure that
52:21 we address them before?
52:22 We have huge concerns, and I mean, they’re going to come back to
52:24 us.
52:24 And I thought about typing this all up, sending it to Paul, but
52:27 it’s too much.
52:28 So this is the only one, though, that you have a lot of concern
52:31 over?
52:31 No.
52:32 Okay.
52:33 I don’t have a, like, there’s nothing in here that gives me
52:34 headaches.
52:35 I just wanted to make sure we got to them, that’s all.
52:37 No, I appreciate it.
52:38 And I’m going to stay on the phone for at least another hour or
52:40 so when I have to go.
52:41 All right.
52:42 So this one, our Brevard, so Brevard has a specific fund balance
52:47 rule.
52:48 The state rule is you have to have 3% designated to contingency
52:53 reserve.
52:54 And if you ever get below 2% because you have to use some of it,
52:56 then you have to write
52:57 up a plan to state how we’re going to get back up there and all
53:00 that, right?
53:01 Hillsborough has been dealing with that for the last couple of
53:04 years.
53:04 We did it for years.
53:05 But Brevard has a specific 3.5% just to kind of give us that
53:08 extra cushion.
53:09 So that’s not going to be in any NEOLA policy.
53:12 So if we move this to 6,235, my suggestion would be that we
53:18 maintain the language that is Brevard
53:21 specific to make it 3.5% cushion.
53:25 And then along with that, I just had a question.
53:28 For several years now, Cindy, since I’ve been on the board, that
53:34 reserve, that 3.5% reserve,
53:37 it’s been the same amount.
53:38 It’s been like 19 million something or other.
53:41 It hasn’t really moved up, but shouldn’t it change every year or
53:44 has it been adjusted?
53:46 I’m trying to think of the budget presentation you guys adjusted
53:48 and I’m sorry, I can’t remember.
53:50 We did adjust it because our revenue went up.
53:53 So we had to adjust it.
53:54 Right.
53:55 So this point, our 3.5% reserve.
53:56 I think 2 million, I think we increased it.
53:58 So we’re over 20 million for that.
54:00 Okay.
54:01 Thank you.
54:02 All right.
54:04 So do we want to put anything in here about the fund balance for
54:08 the medical?
54:10 It has to be at 10%?
54:11 I think that would be a-
54:15 It’s kind of our own state requirement.
54:17 Is that anywhere?
54:18 I think that’s-
54:20 Because the state, because we have our fund balance of 3.5%.
54:24 Right.
54:25 It has to-
54:26 It’s required by state.
54:27 I just didn’t know if-
54:28 Yeah, it’s required by law.
54:29 I know we do it every year.
54:30 About two months worth of-
54:33 Yeah.
54:34 60 days of run out.
54:35 Payments.
54:36 Yes.
54:37 Yeah, it usually is about, yeah.
54:38 So-
54:39 It’s over, it’s about $12 million, a little more.
54:41 10%.
54:42 Yeah.
54:43 All right.
54:44 So if that’s not needed to be in here because we follow it and
54:48 everything else, it’s fine.
54:49 I just saw fund balance and everything else.
54:51 So here’s what we have is there’s some other changes to it to
54:54 bring it up to fund to the
54:55 same thing.
54:56 I think I agree with Ms. Campbell to keep it at 3.5%.
54:58 Yes, I agree.
54:59 But I would like to give Ms. Lisinski the opportunity to look at
55:03 $62.35 and see if there’s anything
55:06 that is counterproductive to what we do normally.
55:08 Does that make sense?
55:10 So that would be good.
55:12 Now, we can go back to $61.20.
55:15 Safety deposit box, we already moved past that one.
55:18 So everybody’s okay with the fund balance one so we can move on?
55:23 Mm-hmm.
55:24 Okay.
55:25 And Ms. Campbell, you leave in 12 minutes so we’ll get moving.
55:29 So 61.40 is the next one on our NEOLA updates and it’s pretty
55:36 much the same thing.
55:38 It goes back to 2002.
55:40 It has a couple more references but besides that I think it’s
55:44 okay.
55:45 What I would like to do is just add the references that are
55:47 there.
55:48 We actually have more.
55:49 We have more than they do.
55:50 Right.
55:51 I mean if we’re not, if it’s not needed then we can.
55:54 If I recall that is our, that’s like the main school board.
55:58 Yeah, the Florida statute one.
55:59 Yeah.
56:00 So it’s powers and duties of the school board.
56:02 So it’s not, it’s not irrelevant.
56:05 Yeah.
56:06 Unless it’s inside there.
56:08 I think this one’s good.
56:09 I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it in there but
56:12 whatever.
56:13 Yeah, I said leave this one the way that it is.
56:15 It hasn’t been updated from NEOLA and leave that statute on
56:17 there.
56:18 You guys are okay?
56:19 Look, one we don’t have to do anything on.
56:20 So what we’re saying is, is leave ours the same way with the
56:24 extra statutory laws referenced.
56:26 The next one’s version two so we’re not opting for that.
56:29 Yeah.
56:30 So now, right.
56:31 And now the next one is 6144 which is investments.
56:35 Looks to me like.
56:36 We did an extensive revision of this two years ago.
56:40 But.
56:41 When it stapled I’m like, oh I know this is a doozy this fall.
56:46 This one came up.
56:47 So the one that’s inside of our policy that we printed out is NEOLA
56:53 and we revised it in 2021.
56:56 This NEOLA one was 2013 but not modified by.
57:01 Oof.
57:02 I think we should just send this one to staff and have staff
57:04 take a look at it.
57:05 I think this one’s current though honestly because their NEOLA
57:08 version is 2021.
57:09 Where are you seeing 2013 at?
57:10 Sorry.
57:11 The NEOLA copyright.
57:12 Oh, at the very bottom.
57:13 It says but she updated it, modified it on the 23.
57:17 I would literally if staff’s okay and NEOLA is in it.
57:21 I see.
57:22 This is one that’s got so many cross references and everything
57:24 else.
57:24 It’s massive.
57:25 Yeah.
57:26 It’s a lot bigger here than it is inside our policy inside this
57:28 NEOLA.
57:29 So I would say if she could review this.
57:32 Are you sure?
57:33 Are you looking at it?
57:34 Because our policy is actually more detailed.
57:36 That’s what I was saying.
57:37 Ours is more detailed than the NEOLA one that’s up here.
57:40 I would say that I’d like to keep the one that we have.
57:42 As long as it has the contains the 6144 investments component.
57:47 Does that make sense?
57:48 Yeah, it does.
57:49 And I think what would be good though is to understand why we
57:52 chose to stay with the NEOLA 2011 template.
57:55 Even though this was revised in 2021.
57:57 And NEOLA is looking.
57:59 I mean, their suggested template to use is a 2013.
58:02 Well, I can tell you one of the conversations we had, and I can’t
58:07 remember if we ended up in this policy.
58:08 Paul, you were here at this time.
58:09 Yeah.
58:10 We had a conversation around, was it Russian investments?
58:13 Yep.
58:14 It was just, yeah, it wasn’t necessarily Russian.
58:17 It was, some of our banks had gotten fined by the federal
58:21 government for investing in like drug cartels and had been fined
58:27 for fraud activities.
58:28 It was a big deal.
58:30 So, we built in a component that allowed for discretion in not
58:33 investing in, even though that may have been the greatest return
58:36 on investment.
58:37 And we literally had to get an opinion from the attorney general.
58:40 Yeah, we got an intent because the statute reads like we’re
58:44 supposed to maximize interest over any other, you know,
58:48 considerations.
58:49 So, based on the plain language of the statute, I wasn’t
58:51 comfortable in saying we’re going to forego the greatest return
58:55 on that investment over other considerations such as a bank may
58:59 have been fined, even though it’s the largest, most stable bank
59:02 in the game.
59:03 So, this was a debate that came out, I was also at the board of
59:06 directors for the FSBA, and it was, it was, it was pretty
59:10 intense.
59:11 And there was no, you know what I mean, there wasn’t like what
59:13 Paul was saying was exactly true.
59:15 I remember being in Tallahassee inside of the Howard Johnson’s
59:18 that was up there, it’s now a different, a different thing.
59:21 That was a small part of the update.
59:22 I think the other part of the update from two years ago was that
59:25 I, you know, hadn’t updated in a while, and we, we needed to
59:29 update it to how, you know, we’re doing the investments.
59:33 Which brings us to another conversation that I think you want to
59:36 really get into.
59:37 I know, I’m like this is going to, I don’t know, I don’t know if
59:39 I want to get into it.
59:40 I’m like, I feel like you’re going to weed into the waters on
59:42 this one on certain companies that.
59:44 Do business with.
59:45 That we do business with.
59:46 I think that, you know, I brought this up before, and is that
59:49 cross over into this?
59:50 I don’t know.
59:51 Well, I will, what I will tell you is when we get into the
59:54 policies that have the, the new statutory updates, it
59:57 specifically says the NEOLA updates from this year are, you can’t,
1:00:01 no ideological preference to vendors.
1:00:04 It specifically says in, in one, two, three, four, five of the
1:00:10 six policy updates for this year is that you can’t do that.
1:00:15 I will say this.
1:00:16 And it cuts both ways.
1:00:17 This opens up a really good opportunity for us to have that
1:00:20 conversation around our investments, because you guys haven’t
1:00:24 had that as part of your education yet.
1:00:26 So, Ms. Lisinski, not the next board meeting, but I would like
1:00:30 to kind of have a presentation on the investment sections of,
1:00:34 you know, all of our investments.
1:00:36 They come up every, every board meeting we approve the next
1:00:39 steps, but I think our new board members could probably do a
1:00:43 good overview of those investments.
1:00:45 If you can give a presentation on the September 19th, I would
1:00:48 say gives you enough time to prepare.
1:00:50 Well, she, she’s also doing that.
1:00:53 That’ll give her 12 days from her biggest night of the year to
1:00:57 get a presentation.
1:00:58 Well, if you need longer, give her a little more room.
1:01:00 If you need longer, that’s fine.
1:01:01 I just, I was just saying.
1:01:02 Okay.
1:01:03 Mr. John Ford came and presented this policy.
1:01:08 I don’t know if you remember two years ago, and it was pretty,
1:01:11 it was a pretty good presentation.
1:01:15 So I can reach out to him and see if he can come.
1:01:17 Yeah.
1:01:18 Could you send us the link for that video?
1:01:20 Yeah, I was going to say maybe that would answer something.
1:01:21 That would be good.
1:01:22 Just to, it might answer a lot of my questions.
1:01:23 That’s a great idea.
1:01:24 Yeah.
1:01:25 The other, the other thing I would do is, is there’s a lot of
1:01:27 our investments that I’d
1:01:28 like to do.
1:01:29 If you could put me to the person in touch, then if we don’t
1:01:32 want to do a presentation and
1:01:33 you want to just review it, our investments are at different
1:01:37 years, returns, all of that
1:01:39 stuff.
1:01:40 I’d like to try to take a look at that.
1:01:42 That’s all.
1:01:43 I’ll follow up with you on an email.
1:01:44 But I do think that the video of the YouTube of that
1:01:46 presentation would be helpful.
1:01:48 Because it was, and I’d like it too, if you could just send it
1:01:51 out.
1:01:51 It feels like the debate was before that.
1:01:52 I’ve slept a few times since then.
1:01:53 I would.
1:01:54 It feels like it was before that.
1:01:55 It felt like that, that might’ve been the end of a long, because
1:01:58 it feels like it was
1:01:59 early years ago that we were having that debate.
1:02:01 The last two years, it felt like an eternity, Mr. Susan.
1:02:04 That’s why it feels like that.
1:02:05 Those are two separate things.
1:02:06 Number one is a request to the link to the board workshop where
1:02:10 Mr. Ford presented this policy
1:02:12 and the changes, but maybe a presentation about our current
1:02:16 investments.
1:02:17 Yes.
1:02:18 Separate.
1:02:19 And then when it’s appropriate for Ms. Licinski and her staff.
1:02:22 Understood.
1:02:23 It might be, Ms. Licinski, that you can just push out what you
1:02:27 have, and then we could review
1:02:28 it, and then that might be sufficient.
1:02:30 But I think in the later date of actually going through it for
1:02:33 the new board numbers so they
1:02:35 understand it would be good.
1:02:37 Mr. Ford actually drafted our current policy on this.
1:02:40 Right.
1:02:41 Awesome.
1:02:42 Thank you.
1:02:43 All right.
1:02:44 So to clarify for direction on 6144, are we moving forward with
1:02:53 our current policy?
1:02:55 I think so, but what I wrote down is to push for further review
1:02:58 if you guys want to dig
1:03:00 into it.
1:03:01 Do you want to look at that, watch the review, and watch the
1:03:03 video?
1:03:03 I would love to see the video of where we were and cross-reference
1:03:05 it with the new legislation
1:03:07 that just passed I think is also important because there might
1:03:09 be some things in there that could
1:03:11 get us in the weeds.
1:03:12 What I would like to do, Dr. Rendell, is just push this to the
1:03:15 next review.
1:03:16 So this will come out of the queue.
1:03:17 Yeah.
1:03:18 I would take it out of the queue.
1:03:19 Let us review it.
1:03:20 Ms. Campbell, are you okay with that to review the past, give
1:03:23 them the opportunity to review
1:03:24 it?
1:03:25 Because he gave us a good education on what the legal
1:03:28 requirements are, what we can and
1:03:30 can invest on, what our main decision is.
1:03:32 Like I said, that’s why we had to have an AG opinion about
1:03:35 pulling out of things that were
1:03:36 like drug cartels and terrorist banks related to whatever.
1:03:41 It’s not like we were investing in terrorist groups, but
1:03:43 somebody was related.
1:03:44 It was like seven degrees of seven bacon to somebody.
1:03:47 Seven bacon?
1:03:48 Kevin Bacon.
1:03:51 That kind of, but it was still drawing some attention, but he
1:03:55 makes it very clear.
1:03:56 Statute specifically says you have to do whatever is one, safest,
1:03:59 but two, it’s going to get
1:04:01 you the best, you know, return.
1:04:03 And you don’t get to go in there and say, well, we like these,
1:04:05 we like this.
1:04:06 It has to be based on the return.
1:04:07 And we had to get special permission or a review to be able to
1:04:10 make even those changes.
1:04:12 So that, it was a, it was really good information.
1:04:16 Okay.
1:04:18 So we’re going to push this, bring it back at a later date so
1:04:19 you can have the time to
1:04:21 review.
1:04:22 This isn’t on a queue just to keep you up.
1:04:23 This is just your reviewing for corrections.
1:04:25 So we’re, we’re still plenty of time out before we have to worry
1:04:28 about it.
1:04:29 Ms. Farnham, they asked for a video of the, of the meeting.
1:04:33 It looks like the revive revision was on May 25th, 2021.
1:04:38 Might want to look in that general area for it.
1:04:42 You’re awesome.
1:04:44 Thank you.
1:04:46 Next, next up is a six, one, four, five.
1:04:48 Looks like there hasn’t been much of a change.
1:04:51 We added in that the superintendent and associate superintendent
1:04:54 of finance would be
1:04:55 prepare the applications.
1:04:56 We need to change that title.
1:04:58 Cause that’s not what we call her.
1:04:59 No.
1:05:00 I’m just kidding.
1:05:01 To the CFO.
1:05:04 Whatever your title is, if you can add that in there.
1:05:07 Just put your name.
1:05:10 No, I’m just kidding.
1:05:11 It needs to say CFO.
1:05:12 Well, I don’t know if she is the assistant superintendent of
1:05:15 financial services.
1:05:16 It might be, but whatever your official title is, maybe change
1:05:20 it.
1:05:20 Associate superintendent is what this is.
1:05:22 Oh yeah.
1:05:23 I didn’t even, I was trying to read it from a distance.
1:05:25 All right.
1:05:26 So we’re okay with making that change and moving on.
1:05:29 Six, one, four, five point zero one is the next policy that we
1:05:34 have.
1:05:35 Let me make sure here that that’s, yeah.
1:05:37 So this is, yeah, it’s a Brevard one.
1:05:40 It’s not inside of the Neola’s.
1:05:42 It’s at least purchasing agreement debt service ratio.
1:05:45 But this is actually in a different policy.
1:05:48 I thought, I read something.
1:05:49 Is it?
1:05:50 That talked about.
1:05:51 I don’t remember.
1:05:52 Our debt services.
1:05:53 Hang on.
1:05:54 Let me see if I can get my.
1:05:55 I had a question.
1:05:56 In the last sentence it says annually as the budget is adopted,
1:06:00 the board shall review the
1:06:01 existing level of debt service ratio.
1:06:02 I know it’s probably in the big fat budget book that you give us.
1:06:09 But is that on that debt service ratio?
1:06:12 Is that, can you kind of point that out when we get around to
1:06:17 doing our budget?
1:06:19 You want to give the presentation?
1:06:21 I’ll make sure that I highlight that.
1:06:23 That would be great.
1:06:24 Thank you.
1:06:25 Okay.
1:06:26 I thought I read this somewhere in a different policy.
1:06:29 It might have been a Florida statute.
1:06:31 I don’t know.
1:06:32 This is the danger of going between too many things.
1:06:36 Okay.
1:06:37 Let me just see if there’s a.
1:06:39 Yeah.
1:06:44 We just searched all the policies.
1:06:46 We don’t have anything for debt services?
1:06:48 Nothing came up.
1:06:49 Okay.
1:06:50 It must have been a Florida statute that I was reading.
1:06:51 Probably.
1:06:52 Okay.
1:06:53 So 6145.01 we’re all okay with moving forward with?
1:06:55 Yep.
1:06:56 So we’re going to have a board policy.
1:06:57 Good.
1:06:58 Next one up is 6150 non-resident tuition.
1:07:02 Yeah.
1:07:03 I, I think this might be obsolete.
1:07:06 That was my question because I don’t think we, if we have a
1:07:11 student who, in this case,
1:07:13 I think it would be like someone who does, they don’t, they don’t
1:07:16 live in the county.
1:07:17 I think we just get their FTE.
1:07:18 Correct.
1:07:19 Right.
1:07:20 We’re not charging people tuition.
1:07:21 Right.
1:07:22 Yeah.
1:07:23 That’s correct.
1:07:24 Well, what about foreign exchange students?
1:07:25 We have a policy separate for that.
1:07:26 Right.
1:07:27 Yeah.
1:07:28 I think those are governed by the different visas you have.
1:07:29 And there is one on that.
1:07:30 Not necessarily tuition.
1:07:31 Yeah.
1:07:32 There is one in here that talks about that.
1:07:34 But I think, I just think this might be, because we’re not
1:07:39 collecting tuition outside
1:07:42 of our international student process that we talked about before.
1:07:46 This, this actually looks like, you know, someone doesn’t live
1:07:47 in the county to come to one of
1:07:48 our schools that we’re charging them tuition.
1:07:50 And we, that’s not the way it works.
1:07:51 Right.
1:07:52 And Neola has no policy here.
1:07:53 So this is a Brevard specific.
1:07:55 Must be fired up about something.
1:07:58 The, I mean, all it does is say non-resident tuition rates.
1:08:03 So how would this be applied to, so if we bring in somebody from
1:08:06 a foreign, right?
1:08:07 A foreign exchange student, we would charge them for it?
1:08:11 It depends on the visa.
1:08:12 We do.
1:08:13 Certain visas get to come and not be charged.
1:08:16 Right.
1:08:17 But if they’re under a certain type of student visa, then we’re
1:08:19 supposed to charge them a
1:08:21 certain rate.
1:08:22 I can’t remember off the top of my head.
1:08:23 Because we can’t get the FTE.
1:08:24 Right.
1:08:25 They have no FTE.
1:08:26 Okay.
1:08:27 Is there any other non-resident tuition that may come in besides
1:08:30 being a foreign student?
1:08:31 And now you can go anywhere you want as long as you can get your
1:08:33 kid there and they have
1:08:34 space.
1:08:35 So it’s all statutory.
1:08:36 Okay.
1:08:37 So, I mean, I’m okay if you guys are okay with removing it.
1:08:41 Yeah.
1:08:42 If this, if we don’t need this, because the only thing, like I
1:08:45 said, the foreign exchange students,
1:08:46 that would be a potential, but I don’t think, I think this is
1:08:49 literally obsolete language.
1:08:50 Yeah.
1:08:51 I think it’s governed by other statutes.
1:08:52 Yeah.
1:08:53 Okay.
1:08:55 And with that, I have to make my exit.
1:08:58 But I’ll still be listening.
1:09:00 All right.
1:09:01 Are you, are you, are you tight?
1:09:03 Are you in pretty good?
1:09:04 Or do we need to call you?
1:09:05 Do you want to, why don’t I take a recess for a few minutes so
1:09:08 she can get into the car
1:09:09 and get on the phone?
1:09:10 Is that fair?
1:09:11 Yeah.
1:09:12 Oh, we’re going to take a break.
1:09:13 All right.
1:09:14 Take a break.
1:09:15 Thank you.
1:09:25 Bye.
1:14:36 Thank you.
1:18:06 Welcome back, everybody.
1:18:11 We are now on to the next policy revision, which is 6152,
1:18:16 student fees, fines, and charges.
1:18:19 6151.
1:18:20 I think we missed 6152.
1:18:22 You’re skipping.
1:18:24 And Neola has one that we don’t.
1:18:27 Neola has it.
1:18:27 We do not, right?
1:18:28 Correct.
1:18:29 Right.
1:18:30 Yeah.
1:18:30 Who knows what policy we’re on?
1:18:33 It’s okay.
1:18:33 So we are officially on 6151.
1:18:39 Correct.
1:18:40 Bad checks.
1:18:41 Okay, I jumped up ahead.
1:18:42 All right.
1:18:42 This is in Neola, but I don’t think we have it in ours, right?
1:18:48 Correct.
1:18:48 I do not.
1:18:49 So, all right.
1:18:50 I don’t think we need to have this.
1:18:52 Do you guys want to?
1:18:53 I think I would.
1:18:55 Yeah, I don’t either.
1:18:56 Yeah.
1:18:57 Okay.
1:18:57 I think we’re good.
1:18:59 Moving next to 6152.
1:19:05 Inside of the Neola template, you have two versions.
1:19:07 Let me check the updated 6152.
1:19:11 We don’t have anything until 63.
1:19:12 So ours, if you look at it.
1:19:15 That’s what needs to be updated.
1:19:17 Yeah.
1:19:19 This needs to be updated, but we need to make the decision on
1:19:22 which one that we’re going to update to.
1:19:24 Because you have version one and version two, right?
1:19:27 Ms. Campbell, we have to update our policy.
1:19:32 And what we’re doing is.
1:19:34 I agree.
1:19:35 I’m going to ask each person if they wanted to use version one
1:19:39 or version two.
1:19:40 Do you have, since I wanted to come to you first, do you have
1:19:44 anything that you’d like to make a recommendation for?
1:19:47 For 6152, you know what?
1:19:51 I did not leave a note about the version one, version two.
1:19:53 I just said we need an update.
1:19:55 If you look at our policy.
1:19:58 I’ll leave that up to whatever staff brings back, unless you
1:20:00 guys have an opinion.
1:20:01 Yes, ma’am.
1:20:02 I think if you look at our policy, it follows more of the
1:20:05 version one.
1:20:06 Yeah.
1:20:07 So I would say, I would ask if we could have staff look at both,
1:20:11 but lean towards version one with the student fines and charges.
1:20:15 If that’s okay with you guys?
1:20:17 Bring back the recommendations, if that’s okay?
1:20:19 Yes.
1:20:20 Ms. Campbell, are you okay with that?
1:20:22 Yep.
1:20:22 Okay.
1:20:23 All right.
1:20:24 Moving on to 6152.01 waiver of student fees, of school fees.
1:20:33 So this is one that is a NEOLA template that we do not have, and
1:20:41 it gives qualifications for people who have free and reduced
1:20:46 lunch who may be homeless.
1:20:47 It gives it the opportunity for us to waive the fees for that.
1:20:50 Which we currently do waive the fees for them, right?
1:20:53 We just don’t have this in policy.
1:20:54 Correct.
1:20:57 I’m sorry.
1:20:57 Yeah, no, no, no.
1:20:58 I like the idea behind it, but I know it gets us into some areas
1:21:01 that, you know what I mean, might need review.
1:21:04 So, Ms. Campbell, what are your feelings on 6152.01 waiver of
1:21:10 school fees?
1:21:12 It’s not our current template, but it is our, it is in the
1:21:16 template.
1:21:17 I just had written down, what are we, I just had written down,
1:21:20 what are we doing now?
1:21:21 So, if we have it somewhere else, I didn’t even know, I didn’t
1:21:24 look at administrative procedures for any of these, but if we
1:21:27 have it somewhere, that’s fine.
1:21:29 But if we need to have it in there, I’m fine with them, bring it
1:21:31 back to us.
1:21:32 Yeah, I think, I think this comes up with the lunch that kids
1:21:35 have at the end of the year.
1:21:36 Remember, we were talking about that.
1:21:38 It’s about $6,000 a year, stuff like that.
1:21:40 Right.
1:21:41 So, accounting.
1:21:41 Well, it also applies when people are applying for choice school.
1:21:45 They can get a waiver for, but I think that we’re doing my way
1:21:48 with that anyway.
1:21:49 So, I’m not sure what other fees we would waive.
1:21:52 Sure.
1:21:53 Ms. Luczynski.
1:21:54 Yeah, so accounting has an accounting internal school manual
1:22:05 that is, it’s got everything in there,
1:22:09 and they update that religiously, and that’s kind of what we’ve
1:22:12 been, it is what we’ve been using.
1:22:14 So, we will continue to use that, and that’s what the schools
1:22:20 have and what we have, but we can, more than happy to make it
1:22:26 policy as well.
1:22:27 Yeah, if you can take that document that you’re referencing, and
1:22:31 then take it and combine it with 6152.01, make sure they’re
1:22:36 there, that’d be great, and bring something back.
1:22:38 Okay.
1:22:39 I think it would also be smart for us to add in there, because
1:22:42 some students might not fall necessarily under the free or
1:22:45 reduced lunch, or even homelessness, but you might have a family
1:22:48 who endures a financial hardship that is a temporary situation
1:22:52 that maybe we could add into the policy something that would
1:22:55 allow for them to apply for a waiver on fees.
1:22:58 Just for, I mean, my daughter’s in course, so there’s a $50 fee
1:23:01 that’s being collected.
1:23:02 I’m just thinking things like that, where it’s like, hey, this
1:23:04 might be something that would be a roadblock for a family, so to
1:23:06 have it available on those circumstances would probably be
1:23:10 really good.
1:23:11 But I think it would be smart to add it into our policy.
1:23:13 I like that.
1:23:14 Okay.
1:23:16 So with that, we’re going to move forward with 6152.01 to go to
1:23:21 Ms. Licinski for review on the document that they already have
1:23:25 at the school-based locations, and come back to us with a
1:23:28 recommendation.
1:23:29 Right.
1:23:30 And the next one is, inside of our policy, we have 6180, which
1:23:34 is not in the, it’s a Brevard one, and it’s a sales search tax.
1:23:39 It just basically says that the administration is district staff.
1:23:43 I think that makes sense.
1:23:45 You guys are okay with keeping this one and moving it on?
1:23:47 Yep, yep, just it’s been reviewed.
1:23:49 Ms. Campbell, you good?
1:23:51 Yes.
1:23:53 Okay.
1:23:54 Moving on from 6180, the next one up is 6180.01, allocation and
1:24:01 use of sales surtax.
1:24:03 Brevard specific.
1:24:06 Yep, this is Brevard specific.
1:24:08 I think we keep this.
1:24:09 There hasn’t been anything that’s changed.
1:24:10 We actually just, we just revised and voted on this last week at
1:24:14 our board meeting.
1:24:15 6180.01, we changed.
1:24:21 Yeah, Sue brought one forward.
1:24:23 It just finished rulemaking.
1:24:24 So it might still be with Neola to get on the website.
1:24:27 So we’re going to bring that back?
1:24:29 No, it was approved.
1:24:30 It’s approved.
1:24:31 Yeah.
1:24:31 So it’s just not in here.
1:24:32 It’s just not.
1:24:33 We already approved.
1:24:33 Yeah, it’s not updated on the website yet.
1:24:35 Got it.
1:24:36 Okay.
1:24:36 So if that’s the case, then 6180.01, we move on.
1:24:41 6180.03, temporary transfer of sales surtax cash between groups.
1:24:46 Sounds pretty interesting.
1:24:48 If you guys are okay with keeping this and having staff review
1:24:53 it to see if they need any changes,
1:24:55 I’m okay with that.
1:24:57 Yeah.
1:24:57 Okay.
1:24:58 Yes.
1:24:59 All right.
1:25:00 The next one that we have is 6210, which is fiscal planning.
1:25:06 It’s not in our current policies, but it is inside the Neola.
1:25:10 Not sure if you guys wanted to take a look at that and let us
1:25:14 make a decision on if we need
1:25:16 to add it or not.
1:25:22 Are you on 6210?
1:25:24 Yes.
1:25:24 Yep.
1:25:25 Sorry, I didn’t.
1:25:26 So I had made the note that it seems like some of that is
1:25:30 covered in our 6120, the fund balance
1:25:34 policy that we’re talking about moving to a different number.
1:25:36 Whatever we do needs to be consistent with that.
1:25:42 Yeah, I just think what I liked about this was the develop a
1:25:47 five-year capital work program
1:25:50 and a five-year long-range budget projection.
1:25:52 We kind of do that, but I don’t think that’s in any kind of a
1:25:54 policy.
1:25:55 Maybe not.
1:25:56 The capital work plan is in policy.
1:26:00 Right.
1:26:01 Okay.
1:26:03 Well, then we should be good.
1:26:04 So 6210, if you guys are okay with it, we don’t need it.
1:26:08 It doesn’t seem like it’s something that we need to add to our
1:26:11 components.
1:26:11 No, I think it’s like, I don’t know why we’re doing these things.
1:26:15 So, again, is it smart to have it in policy?
1:26:19 I feel like each of the components is already in a different
1:26:21 policy.
1:26:21 Yeah.
1:26:22 Okay.
1:26:23 So then.
1:26:23 All right.
1:26:25 Next one is 60.
1:26:26 So we’re not going to move on that.
1:26:28 The next one is 6220, budget preparation.
1:26:31 This is just that the superintendent shall present the budget
1:26:34 for review in accordance with.
1:26:37 We pretty much, this is, isn’t this pretty much state, like just,
1:26:41 it’s pretty much already
1:26:42 somewhere in statutory law, so.
1:26:44 And it’s in trim.
1:26:48 So do we need to put it in here or are we okay?
1:26:51 I think we’re okay.
1:26:53 Okay.
1:26:53 We’re good?
1:26:54 Mm-hmm.
1:26:54 Okay.
1:26:55 We’re good.
1:26:55 Ms. Campbell, we decide, what are your thoughts on 6220?
1:26:59 Ms. Licinski said it’s already in trim.
1:27:01 I’ve questioned whether we needed this one.
1:27:03 Okay.
1:27:04 The policy is 6220, so if we’re not going to have 6220, they’ll
1:27:07 need to change that.
1:27:08 There’s also a section where we have to decide are we going to
1:27:11 do loans to schools, and I think
1:27:13 we had, you know, Brevard does not do that, and so that would be
1:27:17 my recommendation also to
1:27:19 continue that, to not add that part in there.
1:27:22 To not do bonuses to schools.
1:27:27 Okay.
1:27:27 Well, we have to pick options.
1:27:30 That’s kind of a contested argument.
1:27:31 What ended up happening is that when we loaned to certain
1:27:35 schools, they had difficulty paying
1:27:37 it back, and it fell back onto the school district.
1:27:40 Yeah.
1:27:41 And then I think, like, there was a couple of them that were out
1:27:44 there, and that’s what
1:27:45 Ms. Campbell’s referencing.
1:27:46 So are you guys…
1:27:50 Yeah, I would not be in favor of doing loans to schools.
1:27:53 I didn’t think it was a bad idea, but what I would like to…
1:27:56 Any request for a loan would have to come to the board for
1:27:59 approval.
1:28:00 All right.
1:28:00 Ms. Campbell, what I would like to do is offer this to staff to
1:28:07 develop what their recommendations
1:28:10 would be, since there seems to be some updates that need to
1:28:12 occur, and then have them bring
1:28:14 back to us.
1:28:15 Is that okay with you?
1:28:16 Yes.
1:28:18 Okay.
1:28:19 Does that sound okay with you guys?
1:28:20 Mm-hmm.
1:28:21 Okay.
1:28:22 All right.
1:28:23 Well, 6233.
1:28:24 Direction is that the staff will take a look at what the new
1:28:27 version is and make recommendations
1:28:29 to what to update.
1:28:30 Okay?
1:28:31 Mm-hmm.
1:28:32 All right.
1:28:34 6320.
1:28:35 No.
1:28:37 Neola has a 6234.
1:28:39 I’m sorry.
1:28:40 I got ahead of myself, didn’t I?
1:28:41 All right.
1:28:43 So the next one up is 6234, use of discretionary lottery funds.
1:28:47 Let’s talk about that.
1:28:50 Are we currently receiving lottery funds, Ms. Slosinski?
1:29:05 The school recognition dollars come from lottery, and that is
1:29:13 all, but we don’t have discretionary
1:29:15 lottery dollars that come to us.
1:29:18 What is discretionary lottery dollars as opposed to, what’s the
1:29:23 difference?
1:29:25 Is it like a different pool of money?
1:29:26 I think this might be really old.
1:29:28 Yeah, I honestly don’t think schools have gotten that for years.
1:29:30 2009 from Neola, so it’s been a while.
1:29:33 Okay.
1:29:34 All right, Ms. Campbell, there’s some discussion wrapped around
1:29:39 6234 that we do no longer need
1:29:41 it because we don’t have any discretionary lottery funds, and
1:29:44 that it’s an old policy.
1:29:45 Are you okay with that direction, or do you have something you
1:29:48 wanted to bring up?
1:29:49 Yeah.
1:29:49 Well, I don’t want to add any more policies that we don’t need,
1:29:53 but my concern is I thought
1:29:55 we were still receiving about $6 million a year from the lottery,
1:29:58 but if I’m remembering
1:30:00 the way Neola, because I’m not looking at it, I promise, the way
1:30:04 Neola had it, it said
1:30:05 there was something, a statutory reference to every school board
1:30:08 has to have a policy showing
1:30:10 how they’re going to spend this, so if we’re required to, we
1:30:13 probably need to put it in,
1:30:15 but with the change of the state budget, it may not be relevant
1:30:20 anymore.
1:30:21 I don’t know.
1:30:21 Well, with the school recognition dollars, we do have to submit,
1:30:26 or the schools do have
1:30:27 to submit how they plan on using those dollars.
1:30:29 Correct.
1:30:30 So why don’t we do this, since it seems like there is some sort
1:30:33 of funding wrapped around
1:30:34 it, why don’t we have staff look over the discretionary funds of
1:30:37 this policy and see if we need to
1:30:38 put it in place, and then if you can, Ms. Licinski, bring it
1:30:41 back.
1:30:41 Are you okay with Ms. Campbell, them verifying that if we are
1:30:45 receiving it, that this policy
1:30:47 may need or may not need to be referenced and bringing it back
1:30:50 to us?
1:30:50 Yeah.
1:30:52 And can I dig a little deeper on this school recognition fund
1:30:55 conversation since we’re having
1:30:57 it?
1:30:58 Uh-oh.
1:30:59 How are schools recognized?
1:31:01 I’m assuming that the dollar amount that they receive is tied to
1:31:04 how well the school is performing.
1:31:05 Is that a correct assumption?
1:31:07 Correct.
1:31:08 If they achieve an A or they improve a letter grade, they get a
1:31:12 set amount of money based
1:31:13 on their enrollment.
1:31:14 Okay.
1:31:15 And is that something that we decided here at the district?
1:31:17 Or is that something that’s –
1:31:18 It’s a state formula.
1:31:19 State has told us that that’s how that has to be disbursed.
1:31:23 Correct.
1:31:24 Okay.
1:31:25 Correct.
1:31:26 All right.
1:31:27 It just seems like that leaves some of our more difficult
1:31:29 schools or more challenged schools
1:31:31 that don’t receive additional funds there that really could
1:31:33 potentially use it, so that might
1:31:34 be something that we want to talk to the legislation about, too,
1:31:37 as far as –
1:31:38 Yeah.
1:31:39 That’s been how this school recognition money has been disbursed
1:31:42 for 20 years.
1:31:43 Yeah.
1:31:44 The other –
1:31:45 But if we’re trying to bring those schools up that are down,
1:31:48 right, I mean, there’s
1:31:48 that, so –
1:31:49 I think the other thing is, is that a lot of the other schools
1:31:52 receive Title I funding.
1:31:53 Yeah.
1:31:54 That’s a great review.
1:31:55 I mean, that is.
1:31:56 Like, I think we could look at that as an overview of, you know
1:31:59 what I mean, because there may
1:32:01 be – I’m sure that the staff’s already doing that, so total
1:32:03 funding going to each school
1:32:05 based on different –
1:32:06 Well, and to be clear, too, the school recognition funds are
1:32:08 money that’s spent directly at the school,
1:32:10 or is that disbursed amongst teachers and staff, or –
1:32:13 Most of it goes to staff bonuses.
1:32:16 The school creates a plan, and it’s voted on by the staff and
1:32:20 the school advisory council.
1:32:23 So then it seems like –
1:32:24 But the bulk of it goes to staff bonuses.
1:32:26 So then that would even cause a further problem to staffing some
1:32:29 of our more difficult schools,
1:32:30 because they’re going to miss an additional bonus –
1:32:32 That could be accurate.
1:32:33 That would be accurate.
1:32:35 So this would be something that would be good to talk to our
1:32:36 legislation about.
1:32:37 Ms. Campbell, what was – the discussion was wrapped around some
1:32:41 of our high performing
1:32:42 schools may not be some of the ones that are needing the school
1:32:46 recognition funds.
1:32:47 So Ms. Wright had mentioned that maybe part of our legislative
1:32:51 discussion platform should
1:32:52 be that we discuss how to possibly reallocate some of those
1:32:56 funding sources, because we’d see
1:32:59 the better teachers, arguably, would go to a place where they
1:33:01 could receive that funding
1:33:02 rather than going to a school where they don’t.
1:33:04 So I think it’s a much good argument.
1:33:06 I just wanted to kind of bring it up to you if you didn’t hear
1:33:09 it.
1:33:09 No, I heard most of it.
1:33:12 The only person I can’t really – I can’t hear Dr. Rendell and
1:33:14 Cindy very well.
1:33:15 I think they just need to get a little closer to their
1:33:17 microphones if they’re on.
1:33:18 Okay.
1:33:19 10-4.
1:33:20 All right.
1:33:21 Dr. Rendell says 10-4.
1:33:22 All right.
1:33:23 The next one that I have here is 62-35, fund balance.
1:33:27 We discussed that with 61-20, yeah.
1:33:29 Right, right, right.
1:33:30 It’s the one that we discussed.
1:33:31 Do you guys okay with the direction that we had?
1:33:33 I think it was 61-20 that we were looking at that.
1:33:34 Right.
1:33:35 We’re going to renumber it.
1:33:36 Yeah.
1:33:37 Ms. Campbell, we’re back on to the fund balance from 61-20.
1:33:40 We just wanted to make sure that there’s nothing that you wanted
1:33:42 to add here before we move
1:33:43 on.
1:33:44 It’s just kind of hunting it here and then having them review it.
1:33:47 Nope.
1:33:48 I’m good with that.
1:33:49 Okay.
1:33:50 So the next one is 63-20, which is purchasing and contracting
1:33:54 for commodities and contractual services.
1:33:56 Seems that this policy came up in 2022.
1:33:59 It’s one that we do not have in our current policies.
1:34:03 Yeah, we do.
1:34:04 I was wondering if you guys are okay with it.
1:34:06 We do.
1:34:07 We just have it called procurement and contracting.
1:34:10 Sorry.
1:34:11 I’m trying to.
1:34:12 We have that policy.
1:34:13 Hmm?
1:34:14 It’s not in line.
1:34:15 63-20?
1:34:16 Yeah.
1:34:17 Hang on a second.
1:34:18 It’s stapled.
1:34:19 Yeah, I was going to say look for a staple.
1:34:21 You were ahead of yourself.
1:34:22 Got ahead of myself.
1:34:24 Okay.
1:34:25 So we currently have this.
1:34:27 And let me check the…
1:34:29 Looks like we were last revised in 2019.
1:34:36 This was last revised in 2022.
1:34:38 Ms. Campbell, floor is open for you.
1:34:41 What would you like to say on this?
1:34:42 Yeah.
1:34:43 So I definitely think we need to look at these updates as well
1:34:47 as the current legislative updates
1:34:49 from just on the list.
1:34:50 This is the first one on the list of ones they updated this year.
1:34:53 They had the statement about no preference for certain political
1:34:58 or ideological things for
1:35:01 vendors.
1:35:02 I’m just going to make a generic statement for the next several
1:35:04 because I’m about to have
1:35:06 to like mute for a bit.
1:35:08 But just we have this one, but we don’t have the next one, two,
1:35:11 three, four, five, like seven,
1:35:13 but they’re all related to procurement.
1:35:15 So, and I know when we had our last general counsel, Amy Inval,
1:35:19 like procurement was her
1:35:20 thing.
1:35:21 And so we, she did a really thorough job of making sure our
1:35:22 procurement policy was thorough.
1:35:24 But these next seven, if we’re, you know, if there’s something
1:35:28 in those that we don’t
1:35:29 have in our 6320, then we need, we might need those extra.
1:35:34 But if we already have them in our 6320, I don’t want to add a
1:35:37 bunch of policy numbers,
1:35:38 just, you know, just to have them.
1:35:41 - Duly noted, Ms. Campbell.
1:35:44 I think the idea would be to have staff look at it and add them
1:35:48 to if there’s any updates.
1:35:50 I understand where you’re going 100%.
1:35:52 - Yeah.
1:35:53 I, there is one section in here where it talks about the vendor
1:35:57 preference for veteran business
1:35:59 enterprises, which I don’t know that we have that in ours.
1:36:02 I think that that would be something very good to add.
1:36:09 That’s optional, so.
1:36:13 - Ms. Campbell, Ms. Wright wanted to make sure that we added the
1:36:16 veteran preference for the procurement.
1:36:19 - Yeah, I wanted to say, oh, maybe I’m thinking we have a
1:36:23 veteran preference for employees.
1:36:24 But I was going to say that just came to us sometime in last
1:36:27 year, but that may have been not for vendors.
1:36:29 - We do.
1:36:32 Okay.
1:36:33 I would, I like that idea also.
1:36:35 So what I would, what I think we should do is if you look at
1:36:39 these, just like Ms. Campbell was saying,
1:36:40 vendor preference, construction contracting, cone of silence,
1:36:44 procurement.
1:36:45 The question is, do we want to add one big policy to include all
1:36:49 of these?
1:36:50 Or do we want to have them branched out?
1:36:53 Because what the Campbell’s saying, and it looks to be true, is
1:36:56 we don’t have any of those others
1:36:58 because they’re actually inside of this larger one, right?
1:37:04 - I might have just got ahead of myself on that one.
1:37:10 Because sorry, I did, I think, hold on.
1:37:13 I’m on the next policy.
1:37:15 I scrolled way too far.
1:37:16 - 62.20.01.
1:37:17 - Yeah.
1:37:18 Sorry.
1:37:19 - So to Ms. Camp, so what she had mentioned is as we’re going
1:37:27 through these, if they’re not inside of the larger policy,
1:37:29 then she’s okay with sending them.
1:37:31 But if they are inside of there, that she would not want to
1:37:34 create a bunch of policies.
1:37:35 - Yes.
1:37:36 - Which I agree with.
1:37:37 But when you look at, if you look at, so purchasing and
1:37:40 contracting, I would say, needs to be updated because of the
1:37:45 difference in the year.
1:37:45 So that’s number one, I would feel very confident that 63.20
1:37:49 needs to be updated.
1:37:50 And then moving forward, are you guys okay with that?
1:37:53 - Absolutely, yeah.
1:37:54 - Okay.
1:37:55 So Paul, if you can have that updated and have staff look at it.
1:37:58 Next one is the vendor preference.
1:38:00 This is not in 63.20.
1:38:03 - Yeah, no, it’s not anything in there, so.
1:38:07 - That’s weird.
1:38:12 It’s like, so you’ve got.
1:38:14 - Well, some of it is.
1:38:15 Like the bid protest stuff is built into our policy.
1:38:18 - Right.
1:38:19 - But some of it’s not.
1:38:20 So I think that’s where Ms. Campbell was saying we might want to
1:38:23 just send all of those to purchasing
1:38:26 and see if, if it’s not in there, do we need to add it or should
1:38:29 we add it?
1:38:30 - Well, so for me, like you, like not only is bid protest in 63.01
1:38:37 in ours, but then it’s also in 60.
1:38:43 - There’s a 63.26.
1:38:45 - Then it’s in 63.20.01.
1:38:47 Then it’s in 63.26.
1:38:50 So this is basically a spider web of different policies.
1:38:54 - Okay.
1:38:55 - So I think we use what Ms. Campbell said and just take 63.20
1:39:01 and then take all of them all the way up to 63.26 and combine
1:39:08 them.
1:39:08 So I’ll read them to you.
1:39:10 So 63.20, which is purchasing and contracting.
1:39:13 Update that one.
1:39:14 And then the 63.20.01 vendor preference.
1:39:18 63.20.22 construction contracting.
1:39:22 63.24 cone of silence.
1:39:24 63.25 procurement.
1:39:27 63.26 bid protests would all be reviewed to see if they fit into
1:39:32 63.20.
1:39:33 Does that make sense?
1:39:34 - Yep.
1:39:35 - This is going to be like a 45 page long policy that it’s all
1:39:38 said and done when you add all those things in there.
1:39:40 - But it goes along with our new system and everything else that
1:39:42 we have.
1:39:42 - I know, I know.
1:39:43 - So I’m really excited about it.
1:39:48 All right.
1:39:49 If you guys are okay with moving up to.
1:39:52 Let me get past this one.
1:39:54 - All right.
1:39:55 We don’t have the next one either, which is acquisition of
1:39:58 professional.
1:39:59 Well, this would kind of still go under procurement, would it
1:40:01 not?
1:40:01 - So 60.
1:40:02 Oh, I missed something here.
1:40:04 - 63.30.
1:40:05 - Right.
1:40:06 63.30 should be your next one.
1:40:08 - 63.40.
1:40:09 - Right.
1:40:10 - Well, no.
1:40:11 - So 63.30 we’re going to need to add.
1:40:12 Yeah.
1:40:13 So 63.30 acquisition of professional.
1:40:16 63.34 pre-qualification of contractors.
1:40:19 That should also be a part of the 63.20.
1:40:24 - Procurement process.
1:40:25 - Purchasing account.
1:40:26 Okay, Paul.
1:40:27 - Mm-hmm.
1:40:28 - All right.
1:40:29 You’re right, Ms. Campbell.
1:40:30 63.40 is our next one.
1:40:32 We have currently, we have a policy with that.
1:40:35 - Jeez.
1:40:36 - Looks like the last time this Neola one was updated was 2023
1:40:42 with a new statute.
1:40:43 But it looks like 2002 was the last time it was really used.
1:40:47 Ours has more statutory references inside of it.
1:40:51 But ours modifications.
1:40:57 So…
1:40:58 - In letter C, we need to update some position titles.
1:41:05 Is the note that I have.
1:41:07 - Okay.
1:41:08 - Let me apply a project review task force during the webinar.
1:41:11 - So this gets into some of the stuff that…
1:41:21 Go ahead, Ms. Campbell.
1:41:22 I’m sorry.
1:41:23 - Yeah.
1:41:24 I didn’t write down which position titles.
1:41:25 That’s the only note I have is we need to update position titles
1:41:29 and letter C.
1:41:30 I’m sorry.
1:41:31 I can’t give you more detail on that.
1:41:33 - So this is the policy that like when you have your friends
1:41:36 that come up and say,
1:41:36 I’ll build the dugout for the team.
1:41:38 Right?
1:41:39 - Mm-hmm.
1:41:40 - I’ll donate the playground.
1:41:41 I’ll do all that stuff inside of here.
1:41:43 So it seems that there’s a little bit different of the maximums.
1:41:47 So the Neola template that we have gets into about 25,000.
1:41:51 We’re at about 50,000.
1:41:52 That’s probably because in 2002 when it was made for the Neola
1:41:56 template, that was an
1:41:56 appropriate number.
1:41:57 $25,000 doesn’t even get you a playground equipment anymore.
1:42:01 So I feel confident that ours is strong, but I would like to ask
1:42:05 staff to review it just
1:42:06 to make sure.
1:42:07 And then like Ms. Campbell said, change some of those staff
1:42:11 descriptions.
1:42:15 - Okay.
1:42:16 - Yeah.
1:42:17 I propose we just update the current policy to make the
1:42:20 corrections.
1:42:21 - Yep.
1:42:22 Easy enough.
1:42:23 You good to go?
1:42:24 All right.
1:42:25 Next up, change orders.
1:42:27 Oh boy.
1:42:28 We don’t have, I don’t think, we have payment of claims as our
1:42:32 next policy.
1:42:33 So 6345.
1:42:36 So we currently do this though.
1:42:38 I mean, honestly, this is–
1:42:39 - All the time.
1:42:40 - Yeah.
1:42:41 Sue brings forward any kind of change order on contracts that
1:42:44 she has that, I don’t know
1:42:46 what the dollar amount that triggers it is, but it’s–
1:42:48 - Yeah.
1:42:49 What I would like to do is just say, give this to Sue and say,
1:42:52 Sue, do you need this as
1:42:53 a policy?
1:42:54 If not, because of change orders, they always happen every
1:42:58 single contract.
1:42:59 Thank you, Ms. Lasinski.
1:43:01 Sorry we’re out of your area.
1:43:03 - I think she brings them to us for any change order that’s over
1:43:06 $50,000, I believe.
1:43:07 - Yeah.
1:43:08 But I think it would be great just to have Sue and her
1:43:09 department look over this and see,
1:43:10 do we need this?
1:43:11 Is it covered somewhere else?
1:43:12 - Okay.
1:43:14 - You good?
1:43:15 - Good.
1:43:16 - All right.
1:43:17 Use of credit cards.
1:43:18 6423.
1:43:19 - I know.
1:43:20 Okay.
1:43:21 - Is the next one.
1:43:22 And I mean, we have, don’t we have P cards?
1:43:27 - Correct.
1:43:28 - And, but I don’t think they’re credit cards.
1:43:32 They’re just debit cards, right?
1:43:34 - They can be processed as credit cards.
1:43:37 - Yeah.
1:43:38 - Okay.
1:43:39 - Yeah.
1:43:40 - So Mr. Seusson, the next Neolo run actually refers to P cards.
1:43:42 So my question was, we probably need either this one or the next
1:43:46 one.
1:43:46 But if the next one talks about P cards, that’s probably more
1:43:48 appropriate, right?
1:43:49 That’s right.
1:43:50 - Mm-hmm.
1:43:51 - It’s just, I don’t, I didn’t know, like, so I didn’t, I think
1:43:55 the other one is appropriate,
1:43:56 which is credit cards.
1:43:57 I just didn’t know that we actually had some that might run as a
1:43:59 credit card.
1:44:00 You know what I mean?
1:44:01 Because usually your P cards are just taking out of the balance
1:44:04 of the bank account, which
1:44:06 that’s a whole nother mix.
1:44:07 I agree with you.
1:44:08 What I would like to do Dr. Rendell is, is hand 6420 and the
1:44:12 other one, which is 6423
1:44:15 to you guys and just take a look at it, see what is appropriate
1:44:18 to bring back and go from
1:44:19 there if that’s okay.
1:44:20 - 6423 and 6424.
1:44:22 - Yes, sir.
1:44:23 Because they’re kind of the same thing.
1:44:24 - Exactly.
1:44:25 - And if you wanted to take a look at those, I think that we
1:44:27 could do that.
1:44:27 - You might be able to condense them into one policy.
1:44:29 - Yep.
1:44:30 - Okay.
1:44:31 Next one up is 6440 cooperative purchasing, school board
1:44:35 recognized advantage of centralized
1:44:37 purchasing.
1:44:38 This gets into, you know what I mean, being able to work with
1:44:43 larger co-ops.
1:44:44 So you have some that are like federal, some that are state,
1:44:46 some that are, there’s consortium
1:44:48 agreements and stuff like that that are out there.
1:44:51 We don’t have this currently in policy.
1:44:53 I don’t know if we have to in order to do it because I know we
1:44:57 do.
1:44:57 - Is this similar to what a piggyback contract is where we’re
1:44:59 kind of looking at another,
1:45:02 a vendor that’s used somewhere else in the state and we just hop
1:45:05 in.
1:45:05 Isn’t that, wouldn’t that be similar to this or no?
1:45:07 - No, piggybacking is where you’re just jumping onto another
1:45:11 contract that exists.
1:45:12 Consortiums where like, I know they’re big with the smaller
1:45:16 districts where they’ll all
1:45:17 go in on a purchase because they can purchase more and get
1:45:21 better deals because they’re buying
1:45:22 in bigger volumes.
1:45:23 - But we wouldn’t be considered a small district anyways.
1:45:26 They still have like a central Florida consortium.
1:45:28 So if you jump, you could jump in there potentially.
1:45:31 Like if everybody was buying the same books, for instance, you
1:45:34 could potentially order in
1:45:35 a larger volume and get discounted rates.
1:45:38 But you’re right.
1:45:39 The break point of discounts are below us.
1:45:42 So like the healthcare with a lot of the other things that go on,
1:45:45 our break points are
1:45:46 lower than us where there’s prices.
1:45:48 But what it does is, and this is something that we were, I was
1:45:51 working on a couple of years
1:45:53 ago, was that we could open it up to all of our other cities and
1:45:57 say, look, let’s do a
1:45:58 janitorial services contract and you guys can be a part of it,
1:46:01 but it won’t help us, but it’ll
1:46:03 help all the other cities.
1:46:04 And that was something that was on the list of us when we go to
1:46:07 the cities.
1:46:08 Because like you have say Melbourne Beach has 34 employees.
1:46:11 Right.
1:46:13 When they go to buy tissue paper, it’s going to be this X amount
1:46:16 of dollars.
1:46:16 But if they were to join us, you know what I mean?
1:46:18 It would be a little bit different.
1:46:19 Would that cause any kind of additional work for our staff
1:46:22 though, as far as processing
1:46:23 it or anything?
1:46:24 All it is is a cost.
1:46:25 Hey.
1:46:26 Part of the procurement.
1:46:27 Mr. Susan.
1:46:28 Yes, ma’am.
1:46:29 I remember that when Christy did the presentation, we are in a
1:46:37 consortium with the county.
1:46:38 I don’t see if it’s pointing to that, but she did say we are in
1:46:41 a consortium.
1:46:42 Not of our school districts, but with other government entities
1:46:46 and groups.
1:46:47 So it might be good if we don’t have that as part of our
1:46:50 procurement policy, if we need it,
1:46:51 let her take a look at it because we actually did say that we
1:46:54 are in one.
1:46:55 Yeah.
1:46:56 I know that we are in some of them and I know that there’s some
1:46:58 that are still on the books
1:46:58 from before that we don’t take advantage of or do.
1:47:01 But no, it’s, I think it’s a good thing.
1:47:03 I think that we can utilize it.
1:47:05 I just don’t know if it’s somewhere else.
1:47:07 Yeah.
1:47:08 I mean, if we’re that’s, I don’t disagree that it could be
1:47:10 beneficial to some of our municipalities
1:47:12 that are smaller.
1:47:13 So I would say, let’s kick this one to Christy and ask her, is
1:47:15 it something that we currently
1:47:16 are offering?
1:47:17 This would be a great way to help some of our local governments.
1:47:20 And it’s related to 6450, the next one as well.
1:47:23 What did you say, Paul?
1:47:24 6450 is purchasing locally.
1:47:27 So it brings in a lot of the local governments.
1:47:30 So if we want to kick both of those to Christy, we can do that
1:47:34 and have her evaluate.
1:47:34 Yeah.
1:47:35 There’s a, yeah.
1:47:36 And I, so just so you guys know that consortium is, is good
1:47:39 because we can benefit some of the
1:47:40 other ones, but there are some where if we joined the county,
1:47:42 gives us some significant
1:47:44 price.
1:47:45 So like if we, if we were able to on the healthcare, the
1:47:48 majority of healthcare stuff that you go
1:47:50 through is pretty much under about 6,000, anything above that,
1:47:54 you’re going to get pretty much
1:47:55 the same rates.
1:47:56 But sometimes if you bundle by on healthcare, you can pretty
1:47:59 much send a message to somebody
1:48:00 that may not be doing a good job.
1:48:01 Does that make sense?
1:48:03 Mm-hmm.
1:48:04 So having those interlocals work two different ways.
1:48:05 Now the next, so if you’re okay with giving that to Christy,
1:48:08 that one and asking her to review
1:48:09 it.
1:48:10 Both of those.
1:48:11 But the other one I wanted to just talk to you real quick, 6450
1:48:14 local purchasing.
1:48:15 One of the problems that we have, I had a big, when we first
1:48:18 came out with local purchasing,
1:48:20 like giving a percentage to the local guy to get more and all
1:48:22 that other stuff.
1:48:23 Mm-hmm.
1:48:24 That’s great.
1:48:25 But understand that sometimes that inhibits us because the local
1:48:28 person may not have the
1:48:29 best rates, the best job, the best, all of that, and might still
1:48:33 get it.
1:48:33 5% is not bad.
1:48:35 I’ve seen and been a part of RFPs that are 25% of the local
1:48:40 guests, right?
1:48:41 And that, that inhibited them for a better product.
1:48:43 Mm-hmm.
1:48:44 So I think we send this to Christy because I think we already
1:48:47 have some of this stuff in
1:48:47 there.
1:48:48 But I just wanted you guys to know that at local purchasing, you
1:48:52 can do that.
1:48:53 But like when you go to, say, get vendors, like construction,
1:48:56 you may say, okay, well,
1:48:58 we want this local vendor to do it.
1:49:00 They might not have the capacity to do what we need.
1:49:02 Mm-hmm.
1:49:03 So they win the bid and then we can’t get the job stuff.
1:49:05 Does that make sense?
1:49:06 Yeah, I know.
1:49:07 I have mixed feelings on this one because I understand the local
1:49:09 preferential.
1:49:09 Like we want to employ our people.
1:49:11 Yep.
1:49:12 We want to make sure that that money stays here in the county.
1:49:14 But I do understand there’s a time where that isn’t always
1:49:17 feasible to do.
1:49:18 It doesn’t make the most sense.
1:49:19 You can’t do it all the time.
1:49:20 But I do know that like on the construction side, like Wharton
1:49:23 Smith and many of our other
1:49:24 contractors use as much as they can.
1:49:26 Like if they can, they go local.
1:49:27 Right.
1:49:28 Which is a good thing.
1:49:29 And they get, I think that’s good.
1:49:31 So I would say 6450 to go to them.
1:49:33 I just wanted to have that discussion real quick.
1:49:35 Thank you, Paul.
1:49:37 Next one is 6460.
1:49:38 Vendor relations.
1:49:41 I think that this is another one we just sent up to Christy for
1:49:45 a review.
1:49:46 Are you guys okay with that?
1:49:47 Would this kind of be like our conflict of interest?
1:49:50 Yeah.
1:49:51 There’s some stuff in there.
1:49:52 It’s not going to accept any form of compensation payment or
1:49:55 anything like that.
1:49:56 I think that this, you can see it referencing policies that are
1:49:59 already in existence for board members
1:50:00 and school personnel.
1:50:01 It just kind of gives an overview to it and it’s in here.
1:50:04 So I would give it to Christine if she feels like she, if we
1:50:07 need it, we can add it.
1:50:08 Okay.
1:50:09 Is that okay?
1:50:10 Yep.
1:50:11 Ms. Campbell.
1:50:12 Yeah, I just had the quick note.
1:50:15 We do not have policy 11-13, 31-13, 41-13, or 12-14, or 42-14.
1:50:22 So if they do decide to bring it back, we’re going to make sure
1:50:25 that we refer to any policies
1:50:27 that we actually have and don’t have those in there.
1:50:29 Yeah, but I do feel like some of those other ones, Ms. Campbell,
1:50:33 that I’m looking here,
1:50:34 we’ve actually reviewed.
1:50:35 So yeah, let’s have them review it and take a look at it.
1:50:38 But I think that some of this stuff is in other places.
1:50:41 Yeah.
1:50:42 Okay.
1:50:43 All right.
1:50:44 So is that good clear direction for you, Mr. Gibbs?
1:50:47 Okay, moving on.
1:50:48 Payment of claims, 6470.
1:50:51 We now have this one.
1:50:52 This is the first one that we have currently.
1:50:55 This was updated.
1:50:56 We updated this in Brevard in 2014.
1:50:59 Neola was 2002.
1:51:01 Ours is a little bit different than theirs.
1:51:05 The Neola update has much more in it.
1:51:09 I would ask if you guys are okay with, since we don’t have very
1:51:19 good deep knowledge on this,
1:51:20 we pass it on to staff and we can review it and bring it back up.
1:51:23 Yeah.
1:51:24 Is that okay with you, Ms. Campbell?
1:51:28 Sorry, yes.
1:51:29 Okay.
1:51:30 Next up is 6480 expenditures.
1:51:34 I feel like this was last updated in 2016 in our book.
1:51:39 This was last updated on theirs in 2023.
1:51:42 I feel like this is something that we need to give the staff
1:51:45 groups to look over and update.
1:51:47 You guys okay with that?
1:51:48 Ms. Campbell, everybody seems in agreeance to move this to staff
1:51:52 since there seems to
1:51:53 be a significant update.
1:51:54 Yes.
1:51:55 I agree.
1:51:56 It needs to be updated, but also there’s a little section on the
1:51:59 bottom that talks about
1:52:00 petty cash.
1:52:01 Yeah.
1:52:02 That if we don’t have a policy 6620, we need to add that section.
1:52:05 And we don’t have a 6620, so we probably need to add that little
1:52:08 petty cash there.
1:52:09 It’s if we want to use petty cash, which I’m not a big fan of if
1:52:13 we have key cards.
1:52:14 But yeah, I mean, I’d just say let staff do it.
1:52:18 Do we get cash out, Dr. Rendon?
1:52:21 Don’t answer that.
1:52:22 What do you think that armored car’s for?
1:52:24 Oh.
1:52:25 No, but petty cash is like hey.
1:52:27 No, I know.
1:52:28 I’m teasing.
1:52:29 It was a joke.
1:52:30 Careful.
1:52:31 I’ll just keep moving.
1:52:32 I’m sorry.
1:52:33 And moving on.
1:52:34 I think that the direction on that 6480 is that the expenditures
1:52:38 goes to staff for review.
1:52:40 6490 is the next one.
1:52:42 Which we don’t have.
1:52:43 We do not have this one.
1:52:45 It deals with legal services for employees, officers, and public
1:52:48 officials.
1:52:49 Hmm.
1:52:50 This is interesting considering some of the stuff that we’re
1:52:53 dealing with now.
1:52:54 If you guys want to have this conversation, look at this.
1:53:02 Ms. Campbell, what is your thoughts on this?
1:53:06 I have some that I’d like to say.
1:53:08 6490.
1:53:09 Yeah, 6490.
1:53:10 Yeah.
1:53:11 I wanted to ask Paul’s opinion what happened because we don’t
1:53:15 have this policy what happened.
1:53:17 And then my other thought on it was I wouldn’t want to put an
1:53:22 amount.
1:53:23 Right.
1:53:24 Currently in the statute, there is a provision that authorizes
1:53:27 the board to pick up representation
1:53:29 costs for employees that are sued in the line of their duties.
1:53:35 If it’s outside the scope in line of their duties, then the
1:53:38 board has no obligation to pay for those legal costs.
1:53:41 I’ll be honest.
1:53:42 I’m a fan of this policy.
1:53:43 I think we should add this policy.
1:53:45 Okay.
1:53:46 Do you want to stop for a minute, go pause it, and then come
1:53:50 back and bring it back and look at it because there’s a
1:53:53 significant amount of options there?
1:53:55 Yeah.
1:53:56 Okay.
1:53:57 Hey, Ms. Campbell, considering Ms. Wright wants to bring it.
1:54:00 Yeah.
1:54:01 She wants to pause on this and possibly bring it back.
1:54:03 She wants to review it because there’s a lot of options on there.
1:54:05 I seem to agree with her.
1:54:07 And I think there’s some questions to Paul.
1:54:09 Are you okay with punting this policy to the next review when we
1:54:12 do the 7,000s to come back?
1:54:16 Well, I’d like for Paul to kind of weigh in on one, what our
1:54:21 practice has been and what his recommendations would be on this
1:54:28 too.
1:54:28 And I’m thinking I have to check out you guys.
1:54:31 Well, Ms. Campbell, I apologize.
1:54:33 Paul did speak to that.
1:54:35 Do you want him to speak to that again into the microphone for
1:54:39 you or are you okay with waiting to do it?
1:54:41 Yeah, that’d be great.
1:54:42 Okay.
1:54:43 Well, when I bring it back, I can check which options I think
1:54:46 would be applicable and then you guys can review those.
1:54:48 He’s mumbling over there, Ms. Campbell.
1:54:49 What he said was he basically said he’s going to bring back some
1:54:53 recommendations for the different options to us at the time and
1:54:57 then justify that during the conversation if that’s okay.
1:55:00 Sounds good.
1:55:01 All right, you guys.
1:55:02 Have a great rest of the meeting.
1:55:03 Thank you.
1:55:04 All right.
1:55:05 See ya.
1:55:06 All right.
1:55:07 Okay.
1:55:08 Next up.
1:55:09 6510 is the next.
1:55:13 We have that policy last revised in 2019.
1:55:18 Seems that this, our policy is a little bit more robust than
1:55:22 what you see over there.
1:55:24 Okay.
1:55:25 They last updated in 2002.
1:55:26 We did in 2019.
1:55:27 Ours has roman numerals there.
1:55:28 Oh.
1:55:29 That’s the first time I’ve seen that.
1:55:30 Well, that’s our format.
1:55:31 We take all of Neola’s and try and put roman numerals and break
1:55:38 them into sections so it’s easier to discuss.
1:55:42 You can say roman numeral one versus paragraph whatever.
1:55:46 Yeah.
1:55:47 All right.
1:55:47 Just haven’t seen.
1:55:48 Just there’s more authority.
1:55:50 All right.
1:55:51 So are you guys okay with keeping what we have or do you want
1:55:54 staff to review and then bring it back?
1:55:57 Ours is updated past repairs.
1:55:59 Yeah.
1:56:01 I think just maybe look at asking Mr. Dufresne to double check
1:56:04 and make sure that there’s nothing there that he sees.
1:56:06 Oh.
1:56:07 Mr. Dufresne will have, if we can ask Mr. Dufresne to review 6510
1:56:12 for any updates and see if there’s anything he wants to add.
1:56:16 All right.
1:56:17 6520 payroll deductions.
1:56:19 Oh boy.
1:56:20 That’s going to be his.
1:56:22 His.
1:56:23 No, that’s Mr. Sinski.
1:56:24 We’ve revised this one.
1:56:26 It looks like in December.
1:56:27 Yeah.
1:56:28 We just revised this one.
1:56:29 Yeah.
1:56:30 We.
1:56:31 Ours is more recent.
1:56:32 Yeah.
1:56:33 So I think this one’s okay.
1:56:34 Yep.
1:56:35 I think we’re good.
1:56:36 We don’t need any update on that one.
1:56:38 So just leave that one alone, Paul.
1:56:40 First one, I think all day.
1:56:42 6521 tax sheltered annuity plans and accounts.
1:56:47 I don’t.
1:56:48 Yeah.
1:56:49 I flagged this one because I was a little bit like, what?
1:56:51 So here’s what it is.
1:56:54 Right now we have, what is it?
1:56:56 Dr. Rendell, I’ve been on this thing for a little bit.
1:56:58 So we have a bunch of vendors.
1:56:59 Okay.
1:57:00 So right now, tax sheltered annuity plans and accounts.
1:57:04 So tax annuities are part of your 403B and 427 investment plans
1:57:10 or 457, whatever those are.
1:57:12 Some districts go out to bid, put it under one belt and say,
1:57:17 which reduces the overall points that our people are charged.
1:57:21 So the good side to that is, is that you have low cost for the
1:57:25 overall, you’ll save probably one or two years on the back end
1:57:30 of it.
1:57:30 Okay.
1:57:31 The bad side, and you have people that actually are part of a
1:57:34 communications plan where they go to the, they basically sell
1:57:37 their product, but at the same time they’re communicating and
1:57:39 educating the employees.
1:57:41 So our model is different, which is the same as many of the
1:57:45 other places is that we have multiple vendors that are catered
1:57:49 throughout the year.
1:57:51 So like Valak was big for a couple of years and then all of a
1:57:54 sudden they kind of fell to the side.
1:57:56 Now a couple of the ballot guys have gone off and done other
1:57:59 ones.
1:57:59 So we have like a considerable amount of them that all charge
1:58:03 what’s known as annuities.
1:58:05 Now annuities are a higher cost for each one of the plans for
1:58:09 the 401 of the 403Bs in the points that they charge because
1:58:14 there’s guarantees and other things.
1:58:15 There’s a reason for that because they have a smaller amount of
1:58:17 people than they have to have leverage more amount of the
1:58:19 investment.
1:58:20 There’s an opportunity to move to some of the other plans that
1:58:24 are not annuities, which have lower points, but these vendors
1:58:27 will not look at it is what it is.
1:58:29 So, you know, I, I was in the process just so you know of
1:58:32 requesting all of the points based on there.
1:58:35 I did that.
1:58:36 Ms. Scipio gave me all of the points that they’re charging all
1:58:39 of the different vendors.
1:58:40 And then I brought it to my friend who’s a 401k advisor and he
1:58:44 said, look, he said, unless you guys go down to one vendor, you
1:58:47 should just keep the current plans that you have.
1:58:49 If everybody’s happy and just move on.
1:58:51 So I kind of dropped it.
1:58:52 Ms. Okay.
1:58:53 But this, that’s what this is.
1:58:54 So with that, do you think we need a policy or are we okay to
1:58:58 keep going where we are?
1:58:59 Ms. Well, I think if we’re currently offering it, then yeah, we
1:59:02 keep it in policy.
1:59:03 The policies are identical.
1:59:05 It’s just the new, the Neola update references statute.
1:59:08 That’s the only difference.
1:59:09 So you just want to add statute to it and move on?
1:59:12 Well, you just keep the way it is.
1:59:14 Yeah.
1:59:15 All right.
1:59:16 60, I think Rendell’s getting a little testy over there.
1:59:21 No, no, no.
1:59:22 Yeah.
1:59:23 He’s like, man, let’s get through this.
1:59:24 Come on, I got things to do.
1:59:25 We’re getting close, guys.
1:59:26 6530 re-employment assistance.
1:59:28 So yeah, we have unemployment compensation is our term.
1:59:33 Ours was updated in ‘13.
1:59:34 Neola’s was 2022.
1:59:36 You want to send that to staff for a review?
1:59:38 I think we need to rename it though, because the state has gone
1:59:41 to that re-employment assistance.
1:59:42 Yeah, that’s what I was saying.
1:59:43 If we can send it to staff, it seems like there’s been an update.
1:59:47 Paul?
1:59:48 It’s just an update of the name, really, I think.
1:59:51 I think they’re the same.
1:59:55 Yeah, the same, it’s just the name.
1:59:56 Right.
1:59:57 Can we change the name?
1:59:58 Is that like an administrative change or a technical change?
2:00:01 Technical change.
2:00:02 I’ll check and see if I can get it in on a technical change.
2:00:04 I mean, we’re just technically changing it to what the state now
2:00:06 calls unemployment, re-employment assistance.
2:00:09 So, which I like it, because we want to get them re-employed,
2:00:12 not, you know, I get the idea behind it.
2:00:15 Oh, man.
2:00:16 All right.
2:00:18 So the next one is 6540, which has now also been updated with
2:00:26 the new Neola from 2023.
2:00:30 So what I would like to do is offer this to get staff to review
2:00:34 it, since it just got updated.
2:00:35 Yeah.
2:00:36 And let staff, it’s local purchasing, let Ms. Christie take a
2:00:41 look at it, if you guys are okay with that.
2:00:45 Yeah.
2:00:46 That’s fine.
2:00:47 What are you looking at?
2:00:48 Just there, there’s two versions of this, the consultant
2:00:59 agreement.
2:01:01 Right.
2:01:02 But there’s one that just came out from the Florida legislature.
2:01:04 Oh.
2:01:05 That is the most recent update.
2:01:06 I’m not looking at the most recent one.
2:01:07 And I was going to say, let’s just look at that.
2:01:08 Okay.
2:01:09 That’s cool.
2:01:10 Mr. Paul, if they could look at the most recent update from July
2:01:14 of 2023, see what.
2:01:15 That was 6440, not 6540.
2:01:18 6450.
2:01:19 6540.
2:01:20 Yeah.
2:01:21 We’re on 6540.
2:01:22 Oh, man.
2:01:23 I did it again.
2:01:24 Yeah.
2:01:25 I did it again.
2:01:26 I apologize.
2:01:27 So there’s not a 23 update.
2:01:28 Yep.
2:01:29 Disregard the chair for saying that.
2:01:32 All right.
2:01:33 Consulting agreements.
2:01:34 Okay.
2:01:35 I was like, I’m not looking at the new updated Neola ones.
2:01:37 It would be so great.
2:01:38 There are no more July 23 updates in Neola.
2:01:41 Oh, good.
2:01:42 I can exit out of that box.
2:01:43 Yeah.
2:01:44 We are done with the 23 updates.
2:01:45 Close.
2:01:46 Thank you.
2:01:47 Thank you for that.
2:01:48 All right.
2:01:53 I know we have consultants that we currently do work with.
2:01:56 Mm-hmm.
2:01:57 There’s two versions here.
2:02:00 Personally, I like version two better just because it’s a little
2:02:03 simpler.
2:02:03 It’s not limiting.
2:02:04 Yeah.
2:02:05 I’m good.
2:02:06 A lot of those.
2:02:07 If we’re going to put a consultant, employment of consultants in
2:02:11 to policy, I think version
2:02:12 two is a little cleaner.
2:02:15 So we have like, so I do know that like career and technical has
2:02:18 a consultant that works for
2:02:20 the firm.
2:02:21 I do know that consultants come in and work every once in a
2:02:23 while.
2:02:23 Mm-hmm.
2:02:24 So if we can kick this one, I like version two, two to Christie
2:02:27 and see if there’s something
2:02:27 that she would like to add.
2:02:29 And then that would go that route.
2:02:32 Mm-hmm.
2:02:33 That’s okay.
2:02:34 All right.
2:02:35 Mixed up.
2:02:36 This one has to be updated.
2:02:37 6550.
2:02:38 Travel and expenses.
2:02:40 Yeah.
2:02:41 This is the one that we already, so this was updated in 2014.
2:02:44 This is a, this, this has been updated.
2:02:49 I know for a fact, Neola 2023, what, this has some of the stuff
2:02:54 that the state has been
2:02:55 inside of here making changes.
2:02:56 Mm-hmm.
2:02:57 Our policy was not updated.
2:02:58 If we can send the most updated policy to staff and then have
2:03:01 staff just come back with the
2:03:02 recommendations that they have inside of here.
2:03:04 Okay.
2:03:05 If that’s okay.
2:03:06 Paul, are you okay with that?
2:03:07 No.
2:03:08 Okay.
2:03:09 Ooh, this is a big one.
2:03:10 Next one is 6605 crowdfunding.
2:03:15 Dun, dun, dun.
2:03:16 Yeah.
2:03:17 Look at all statues.
2:03:18 I know that.
2:03:19 Yeah, I know because I, this was something that we were working
2:03:21 through.
2:03:22 Um, I know we changed this in 2021.
2:03:27 I know ours, uh, Paul, ours has been updated past the Neola one.
2:03:32 Do you feel pretty confident in our crowdfunding policy?
2:03:35 Because I know we, we were going around, there was one person
2:03:37 that was applying to be a crowdfunder
2:03:38 and I learned so much about it.
2:03:40 Mm-hmm.
2:03:41 Paul, do you feel confident with this one?
2:03:42 Yeah.
2:03:43 I’m happy with, uh, ours, but I would, we, I can get with Cindy
2:03:47 and see if her group who
2:03:48 handles a lot of it with, uh, the other staff that handle them
2:03:51 procurement to see if they
2:03:53 would recommend any tweaks to, like, issues.
2:03:56 Yeah.
2:03:57 Do we want to do these?
2:03:58 I know I’ve had discussions around perhaps making it once a year.
2:04:02 We open the application window for new people because they’re
2:04:06 very time consuming.
2:04:07 They’re not only time consuming, but they’re, they’re very pushy.
2:04:10 Yeah.
2:04:11 When we get new ones, yeah, in the middle of stuff.
2:04:13 Because they want to get in and do business, right?
2:04:15 Yeah.
2:04:16 And they just, and poor Paul is like, I remember that one was
2:04:19 like 26 emails back and forth.
2:04:20 Yeah.
2:04:21 Oh my gosh.
2:04:22 So yeah.
2:04:23 So anything you guys want to do, that’s great.
2:04:25 I think it’s hilarious that we have more statute listed than our
2:04:28 policy is in length.
2:04:28 It looks like on this one.
2:04:29 So it looks like this was heavily researched in 2021.
2:04:32 Yep.
2:04:33 All right.
2:04:34 Next one is, is so if you’re okay with that direction, Paul,
2:04:36 that you actually made the
2:04:37 recommendation for.
2:04:38 So that’s good.
2:04:39 Next one is 6610.
2:04:40 If you can, Neola, Neola updated this in 2018.
2:04:47 We updated ours in 2010.
2:04:49 If you can have staff review that one, that would be my
2:04:52 recommendation and come back.
2:04:53 Are you okay with that?
2:04:54 Yeah.
2:04:55 Okay.
2:04:56 You feel good about that, Paul?
2:04:58 Yeah.
2:04:59 All right.
2:05:00 Next one is, is petty cash funds.
2:05:02 6620.
2:05:03 We don’t have that.
2:05:04 Not a big fan of petty cash.
2:05:05 But if we do have it, maybe ask staff if they think that they
2:05:06 need it.
2:05:06 But I’m okay not having it.
2:05:07 Yeah.
2:05:08 I don’t, I’m not a big fan of petty cash either, honestly.
2:05:09 Not any of the cards and stuff like that that you can use.
2:05:10 I know that.
2:05:11 I mean, I, I, I, well, yeah.
2:05:12 Yeah.
2:05:13 Okay.
2:05:14 Direction from there.
2:05:15 Change, change fund.
2:05:16 6621.
2:05:17 We do not have that.
2:05:18 We don’t have that.
2:05:19 Not a big fan of petty cash.
2:05:20 We don’t have that.
2:05:21 Not a big fan of petty cash.
2:05:22 But if we do have it, maybe ask staff if they think that they
2:05:23 need it.
2:05:23 But I’m okay not having it.
2:05:24 Yeah.
2:05:25 Okay.
2:05:26 Direction from there.
2:05:28 Change, change fund.
2:05:30 6621.
2:05:31 We do not have that one.
2:05:33 Recognize a change funded day to day operations.
2:05:35 School district.
2:05:36 Go through as established a change funded.
2:05:37 Designated building cashier who would be responsible.
2:05:40 I, I don’t.
2:05:41 No, I don’t like this one.
2:05:42 Mr.
2:05:44 Trent, we’re good.
2:05:45 If I say something inappropriate, just holler and say no, I
2:05:47 disagree.
2:05:48 Okay.
2:05:49 So I think we’re going to pass on this one.
2:05:51 6621.
2:05:52 We’re not going to use.
2:05:53 6625.
2:05:54 We would not use.
2:05:55 65 is petty cash accounts again.
2:05:57 Another area.
2:05:58 If you can have staff review for the petty cashness of it.
2:06:00 We’re okay with that.
2:06:05 Okay.
2:06:06 6661 is the next one up.
2:06:09 Instructional materials allocation.
2:06:11 We need this one.
2:06:14 Yeah.
2:06:15 There’s three Florida statutes that are inside there.
2:06:16 It was updated last year.
2:06:17 I think that we, we need this one, Paul, if you can send it to
2:06:20 staff to just have them
2:06:21 review to make sure that there’s any changes they might want to
2:06:24 make up to that.
2:06:24 But I do think we need that.
2:06:25 Are you okay with that?
2:06:26 Okay.
2:06:27 All right.
2:06:28 Moving on.
2:06:29 Trust and agency fund.
2:06:31 We do not have this currently.
2:06:33 It was updated in 2002.
2:06:36 Is this something that we need though?
2:06:37 Because I know that there’s been, well, I guess, no, not really,
2:06:42 because we’re not the administration
2:06:43 of scholarships.
2:06:46 We had a situation that happened last school year with a
2:06:49 scholarship that wasn’t awarded.
2:06:50 And I vaguely remember it.
2:06:53 I know Dr. Sullivan was working.
2:06:55 I think the organization maybe closed.
2:06:57 I don’t know, or something.
2:06:58 It was something funky.
2:07:03 I don’t know.
2:07:04 Is this something that we need?
2:07:05 Because I have a student that gets a scholarship.
2:07:07 That fund, those funds aren’t coming to us.
2:07:08 It’s going through whatever organization.
2:07:09 Correct.
2:07:10 I don’t know of us operating a trust and agency fund.
2:07:14 Yeah.
2:07:15 It doesn’t sound like I don’t really want to do any of that.
2:07:17 No.
2:07:18 I just assume stay out of it.
2:07:19 You guys are okay.
2:07:20 We’ll move on.
2:07:21 We do not need 6670.
2:07:22 The next one up is 6680 recognition.
2:07:25 It is not in NEOLA.
2:07:27 It’s a Brevard policy.
2:07:28 I know.
2:07:29 I was actually really happy when I saw this.
2:07:30 I mean this is good though because it gives us the ability from
2:07:33 a board’s perspective to
2:07:33 be able to recognize certain administrators or things that are
2:07:36 going on, staff, students,
2:07:38 citizens.
2:07:39 Pins, plaques.
2:07:40 Yeah.
2:07:41 We can give them some awards.
2:07:42 Token awards.
2:07:43 Other amenities.
2:07:44 I really like this policy personally.
2:07:45 So I was like, hey, if this is something that we’re able to use,
2:07:47 I didn’t realize it
2:07:48 until I was going to the policy book.
2:07:50 I like this.
2:07:51 I don’t want to touch it.
2:07:52 Something I will be utilizing.
2:07:53 I’m ready to get some plaques made for some people.
2:07:55 Let’s go.
2:07:56 And just so you guys know, Dr. Mullins used to have these pins.
2:08:00 He ordered a bunch of them.
2:08:01 I have a bag of them.
2:08:02 Yeah.
2:08:03 Well, you got some.
2:08:04 Okay.
2:08:05 Would you like some?
2:08:06 No, I’ve got them.
2:08:07 Okay.
2:08:08 I have a bunch of them.
2:08:09 I do.
2:08:10 Okay.
2:08:11 6680.
2:08:12 Next up, 6685 is what’s inside of the funding for promotion,
2:08:17 public relations, and hospitality.
2:08:19 Oh, no.
2:08:20 Sounds like just me.
2:08:21 2017, the board prohibits the expenditure for any purchase.
2:08:25 They’re not directly related to students’ expenditures of board
2:08:29 funds.
2:08:29 So this is kind of, you know, where this dives into is our
2:08:33 funding coming from PI and some
2:08:35 of the other stuff, I think, is where this is kind of coming
2:08:39 into.
2:08:40 Yeah.
2:08:41 So if you see derived from auxiliary enterprises and undersigned
2:08:44 gifts up to the limit of the
2:08:45 state board, rather than the purpose of promotion, all that
2:08:48 stuff.
2:08:48 So this speaks to that.
2:08:49 If it would be okay with you guys, I’d like to punt on this,
2:08:55 because I’m going to bring
2:08:58 forward some of the B2K12 stuff and just kind of get through it.
2:09:01 There’s a couple of principles that have shown some concern, and
2:09:03 I just want to get that thing
2:09:03 back on the rails.
2:09:04 Yeah.
2:09:05 So if you guys are okay with punting this thing.
2:09:07 I’m okay with punting it.
2:09:08 I mean, I think this is probably a good policy, though, to look
2:09:11 at.
2:09:11 I think we definitely are interested in this, but we’re going to
2:09:14 have some discussion wrapped
2:09:15 around some of the other things.
2:09:16 So, Paul, if you can just pause on this one.
2:09:19 Thank you.
2:09:20 All right.
2:09:23 6700 Fair Labor Relations Standards Act.
2:09:28 All right.
2:09:29 It says Audit Committee.
2:09:33 I don’t think it’s all the same.
2:09:35 So, is there another place that the Audit Committee sits?
2:09:38 Yeah.
2:09:39 It says, well, it’s just an external financial audit.
2:09:41 Internal Audit Office.
2:09:42 It’s on the next policy.
2:09:43 It’s an EEL of 6830 is where their audit stuff comes in.
2:09:48 So, this.
2:09:49 So, when I read this, there’s not only legal.
2:09:51 There’s Florida statutes.
2:09:52 There’s articles in the state constitution.
2:09:55 What I would recommend is that we take 6700, which seems to be
2:10:03 one of the later ones,
2:10:05 and then add this one as the Fair Relations Standard Act.
2:10:11 So, I think a lot of this is defined in our contract with our,
2:10:14 is that correct?
2:10:16 I mean, with the union?
2:10:18 When you look at this and it starts talking about our work week,
2:10:20 how we define it.
2:10:21 These are all things that are established and set out in
2:10:23 contracts.
2:10:24 So, do we need to have it?
2:10:25 A lot of it would be applicable in the contract.
2:10:27 A lot of this, though, is federal.
2:10:29 Like the FLSA is the federal act and incorporated in state
2:10:32 statute.
2:10:33 So, when they’re saying defined work week, that’s if we get an EEOC
2:10:37 complaint alleging that we failed to pay overtime.
2:10:40 They’re going to look at what the, they want to know what your
2:10:43 policies are on the defined work week for what positions.
2:10:45 Okay.
2:10:46 They may be in job descriptions.
2:10:48 This position is Monday to Friday from 8:00 to 5:00, whatever
2:10:51 the job description, but I’m not positive on that.
2:10:54 So, then would your advice be to, to go ahead and.
2:10:58 I can look at what we have elsewhere and then bring back a
2:11:00 recommendation.
2:11:01 Okay.
2:11:02 Yeah, because it’s kind of, this has Florida statutory law,
2:11:05 constitution, all that kind of stuff.
2:11:07 Yeah.
2:11:08 It might need to be added.
2:11:09 Sounds pretty important.
2:11:10 Yeah.
2:11:11 All right.
2:11:12 So.
2:11:13 Clarification to 6700 Audit Committee.
2:11:17 That is similar to the NEOLA 6830.
2:11:22 And 35, yeah.
2:11:24 So.
2:11:25 What I said was if 6700 send it to Paul for review, move 6700
2:11:31 Audit Committee to either 6830 or 6840.
2:11:34 Renumber it.
2:11:35 Right.
2:11:36 Renumber it.
2:11:37 And then what I’m about to do is just ask staff to look at those
2:11:40 two.
2:11:40 Yep.
2:11:41 Along with 6700, the old policy.
2:11:43 Yep.
2:11:44 And review them for what moving forward.
2:11:46 Okay.
2:11:47 Does that make sense?
2:11:48 Yeah.
2:11:49 All right.
2:11:53 Three more to go.
2:11:54 You guys holding that?
2:11:55 I know.
2:11:56 You start, you’re like, okay, we’re going to get to the end.
2:11:58 Let’s go through them quick.
2:11:59 All right.
2:12:00 The Audit Committee, those policies obviously we’re going to ask
2:12:04 the staff to look at because
2:12:05 this is a far more extensive policy than what we have in place
2:12:09 right now for the Audit Committee.
2:12:10 Right.
2:12:11 So if you look at it, it moves from 6700 to 6830, right?
2:12:15 Mm-hmm.
2:12:16 And 6835, sorry.
2:12:17 Yeah.
2:12:18 And then you have 6840, 6840.
2:12:20 Well, then if you turn to ours, which is the next one, 6705,
2:12:23 Charter of Internal Audit.
2:12:24 Right.
2:12:25 Right?
2:12:26 And then that’s the last policy we have.
2:12:27 And then there’s all of these.
2:12:29 I think, Paul, if you can take our original 6700 along with 6705,
2:12:35 look at the updated policies
2:12:37 from 6830, 6835, and then the two versions for 6840 and figure
2:12:43 out what that looks like and bring it back to you.
2:12:45 Mm-hmm.
2:12:46 Yeah.
2:12:47 Because it’s just too much.
2:12:48 There’s a lot there that needs to be done.
2:12:50 Yep.
2:12:51 You guys okay?
2:12:55 Mm-hmm.
2:12:56 That’s the end of it.
2:12:59 You guys have anything else in the 6000s that you would like to
2:13:04 bring up?
2:13:05 No.
2:13:06 You just bang, you got it done.
2:13:08 I did have a couple of things that I wanted to just give you
2:13:12 guys a heads up on.
2:13:13 We have that legislative review I put on the agenda.
2:13:17 Right.
2:13:18 Just so that you guys could be prepared.
2:13:21 The way that I put it on there was that September 9th, we would
2:13:25 kind of discuss it and have staff bring forward any
2:13:28 recommendations that they may need.
2:13:29 Okay.
2:13:30 And then on September, I think it’s 16th, the next meeting, we
2:13:34 would actually come together and then make a formal legislative
2:13:37 priority list and get it out.
2:13:38 Okay.
2:13:39 I will grab the Florida School Board Association legislative if
2:13:44 there is one.
2:13:45 So, Katie sits on the advocacy committee right now.
2:13:49 Mm-hmm.
2:13:50 They may have some ideas.
2:13:51 The big thing that I’m going to focus on myself this year is
2:13:53 going to be DREG.
2:13:54 Because I know from my perspective and what I went through and
2:13:58 what the regulations and some of the paperwork that we have is
2:14:02 out of control.
2:14:03 Mm-hmm.
2:14:04 So, that’s where I’m going to focus mine.
2:14:05 But I think if you guys can bring back some ideas.
2:14:07 Okay.
2:14:08 At the next session, talk to your friends, do that kind of stuff.
2:14:10 Gotcha.
2:14:11 Is that okay, Mr. Trent?
2:14:12 And then, Mr. Rendell, I think one of the things that I was
2:14:16 looking at was, you know, we kind of bounced around with those
2:14:19 contract renewals coming back before the board.
2:14:23 And I don’t feel like we had a strong enough discussion over
2:14:26 that.
2:14:26 So, what we had mentioned before was, if a contract has a three-year
2:14:30 contract with two one-year extensions, those two one-year
2:14:34 extensions routinely have not been coming before the board.
2:14:37 So, they just continue those contracts.
2:14:39 I feel that we, as a school board, should see that.
2:14:42 Right?
2:14:43 But I don’t know if I had that authority given to tell the
2:14:48 superintendent.
2:14:49 Is that, you know what I mean?
2:14:51 So, that along with the direction from the $50,000 that the
2:14:55 superintendent and others, deputy superintendents and stuff like
2:15:00 that, or assistant superintendent may spend money on, should
2:15:03 just come before us as an informational item on the board so
2:15:05 that we can keep an eye on.
2:15:06 That’s all.
2:15:07 Informational items?
2:15:08 Yeah.
2:15:09 Does that make sense?
2:15:10 I think you should set a minimum amount because I don’t, Dr.
2:15:12 Rendell doesn’t need to come and tell us every…
2:15:14 $300 of these things.
2:15:15 Right.
2:15:16 Exactly.
2:15:17 So, that’s what I’m saying.
2:15:18 I mean, that’s a huge gap from zero to $50,000.
2:15:19 So, I feel like there should probably be, hey, if there’s
2:15:21 something that you have, if he’s stroking checks for $45,000
2:15:25 over and over again.
2:15:26 I know we don’t do checks.
2:15:27 I don’t think, like Mullins would always say that he never did
2:15:31 it.
2:15:31 The thing is, Dr. Rendell had mentioned he had something in
2:15:34 Indian River County that he did.
2:15:35 What was the policy there?
2:15:36 Can I ask that?
2:15:37 Every quarter we just had an agenda item that listed anything
2:15:44 that was purchased or contracts that were executed under the
2:15:48 superintendent’s spending authority.
2:15:50 Okay.
2:15:51 You know, and keep in mind, again, that’s the superintendent’s
2:15:54 spending authority.
2:15:55 It’s not like the superintendent has like a fund.
2:15:57 Right.
2:15:58 But it’s, you know, contracts or anything that’s budgeted for,
2:16:01 but under $50,000, we don’t have to bring the board for approval.
2:16:05 But every quarter there was just like a list of those so that
2:16:08 the public could see that, the board members could see that.
2:16:11 You know, we could look at trying to put that together.
2:16:14 Yeah, I think that’s a good idea.
2:16:15 Honestly, I think it just creates transparency too.
2:16:17 Yeah, I mean, it’s a bigger district, so it’s a bigger lift.
2:16:20 Okay.
2:16:21 You know, but it was something we did there and, you know, like
2:16:24 you said, provide a little transparency.
2:16:26 Yeah.
2:16:27 And a quarterly basis, I feel comfortable with that.
2:16:29 I think that’s good because, again, with it being a bigger
2:16:32 district, I’m sure there’s going to be quite a bit of work that
2:16:34 goes into that.
2:16:34 Right.
2:16:35 Yeah.
2:16:36 And then also, not only the superintendent, but doesn’t the
2:16:40 cabinet have up to a certain amount that they can authorize
2:16:44 without having it come before the board?
2:16:46 Those would still all fall under that same list.
2:16:48 Okay.
2:16:49 They would.
2:16:50 I would say board, superintendent, cabinet.
2:16:51 You say superintendent’s authority, superintendent or designee.
2:16:54 Okay.
2:16:55 Anything under 50 grand coming out of ESF would be on that list.
2:16:59 Got it.
2:17:00 Okay.
2:17:01 And then as far as, I think I had spoken to Ms. Rodriguez about
2:17:04 the contract piece, but I’m not sure if I had the board’s
2:17:08 authority.
2:17:08 Paul, can they, if I would like to move on having those
2:17:12 contracts that are the contract renewals on the one-year
2:17:15 extensions come before the board for approval?
2:17:18 Is that something that I have to do at a board meeting to set
2:17:20 that direction?
2:17:21 We’re not really voting on anything or could I get that here or
2:17:25 do I need to wait?
2:17:26 What do you mean for renewals?
2:17:28 I would like to make a recommendation so that the contract renewals
2:17:31 that in the past have not been coming before us for the contract,
2:17:34 you know, have the three-year, one-year, and one-year contract
2:17:38 extensions.
2:17:38 Right.
2:17:39 I’d like to have those contract extensions come before the board.
2:17:41 So I was going to make that recommendation, but Ms. Campbell and
2:17:44 Ms. Jenkins are not here.
2:17:45 So would it be appropriate to just make that recommendation and
2:17:48 see what Ms. Rodriguez brings back?
2:17:49 Or do you want me to bring it back at the next school board
2:17:52 meeting to get recommendation from the whole board?
2:17:54 I mean, either way would be fine.
2:17:56 I’m just trying to think through.
2:17:58 I’d probably have to review the contracts to see what the
2:18:01 language is in them because it might require an addendum if it’s
2:18:05 overly specific.
2:18:06 Yeah.
2:18:07 I think, yeah, I think we as a school, so like say, you know,
2:18:11 contract for services X has a three-year and a one-year and a
2:18:15 one-year.
2:18:16 What was happening was is you had the three-year and then it
2:18:19 never came back before the board.
2:18:21 And there were some that had just continued to go right on one-year
2:18:24 extensions and they never came back for procurement.
2:18:27 And we didn’t know about it because it was just being extended.
2:18:30 So the idea would be that if we knew about it coming back along
2:18:34 with our annual review that we have on some of those that we’re
2:18:37 looking at, I think it could be part of the package.
2:18:40 But I didn’t want to do it unless, I mean, we have a majority
2:18:43 here, but I didn’t want to say that unless you can give
2:18:47 direction during a workshop that we don’t normally vote on
2:18:49 things.
2:18:49 You know what I mean?
2:18:50 Right, yeah.
2:18:51 I don’t know that it requires a vote to just ask the
2:18:54 superintendent to make sure those come back before the board.
2:18:57 I think it would be part of the policy.
2:18:58 I don’t hate that.
2:18:59 I don’t dislike it.
2:19:00 And I think, honestly, when we look at doing the annual review
2:19:04 of these contracts, some of them I know this will be caught on
2:19:07 that end as well.
2:19:08 So I don’t think it’s a bad idea, honestly.
2:19:12 And I’m not talking about the, you know, $10,000 custodian.
2:19:15 Right, right, right.
2:19:16 You’re talking, yeah.
2:19:17 There would be a limit, but okay.
2:19:18 All right.
2:19:19 Thank you.
2:19:20 All right.
2:19:21 Does anybody else have anything else to say?
2:19:22 Dr. Rendell, you got anything?
2:19:23 I do.
2:19:24 I need board direction on a couple of things.
2:19:26 I mean, we’re not voting, but kind of need some board direction.
2:19:29 There is a hurricane out in the Gulf.
2:19:33 Right now, we do not plan on closing school tomorrow.
2:19:36 We’ll make a final decision this afternoon.
2:19:38 But the last storm tracks that we saw, it looked like we’re far
2:19:43 enough away that we won’t have any dangerous winds or anything
2:19:47 like that.
2:19:48 But I do kind of need board direction.
2:19:50 If we were to close school, I need some kind of direction on
2:19:55 make-up-date possibilities.
2:19:57 The board may be aware that the first listed make-up days on our
2:20:02 calendar occurred during the Thanksgiving holiday.
2:20:07 So if we were out any extended period of time, even one day
2:20:11 really, we would probably have to make up that day.
2:20:15 And so I kind of need some board direction on whether you would
2:20:18 want us to just go ahead and take those Thanksgiving days
2:20:22 or stay away from those Thanksgiving days and come up with other
2:20:27 options for making up the day.
2:20:29 Because we kind of want some direction from the board so that if
2:20:32 we were to close,
2:20:33 either for this hurricane or another one, whether we just say,
2:20:38 hey, we’ve got these on the calendar.
2:20:39 They’re make-up days.
2:20:41 It’s listed on the calendar.
2:20:42 We’ll go with those.
2:20:43 Or if you’d rather look at a different option like we did
2:20:47 exercise last year, pushing into second semester or removing
2:20:51 some early release days or things like that.
2:20:53 So can I ask a quick question just before we speak to that?
2:21:00 I think the trigger is that we can’t cross the causeways if the
2:21:04 wind gets above a certain amount, right?
2:21:06 Correct.
2:21:07 It’s sustained winds of 35 miles an hour.
2:21:10 Okay.
2:21:11 And so what would happen if we today said we do not want to
2:21:15 close school, right?
2:21:17 And then tomorrow morning those sustained winds pick up, we
2:21:20 would just make an announcement immediately?
2:21:22 Yeah, we would have to make the decision this afternoon.
2:21:25 Right.
2:21:26 We can’t wait till tomorrow.
2:21:27 I understand that.
2:21:28 Okay.
2:21:29 And then just so you guys know, what we did before was you try
2:21:32 to catch it like when they come back.
2:21:33 So you extend the semester into past Christmas and then they say,
2:21:38 okay, there’s the games that they play plus.
2:21:39 There were some years where we actually had more minutes and we
2:21:43 were able to reduce it that way too.
2:21:45 Is there an option that in the event that we were able to reduce,
2:21:50 oh, that’s through contract.
2:21:53 Like I was going to say, you could also reduce the amount of
2:21:57 early release Fridays.
2:21:58 Correct.
2:21:59 So in simple terms, the easiest solution to make up days to use
2:22:06 the days identified in the calendar.
2:22:09 The calendar has already been voted on and approved by the board.
2:22:14 Those are days like say, for example, if you close school, your
2:22:18 bus drivers don’t drive and those types of things.
2:22:20 So if, you know, we typically pay our employees even when we
2:22:24 close for a hurricane, even if they are hourly and they don’t
2:22:27 work.
2:22:27 But then if you come back and do a make up day, that’s an
2:22:29 additional day, then you pay them again.
2:22:32 So you pay them twice, which is fine.
2:22:34 We do that.
2:22:35 We have a budget for that.
2:22:37 The biggest thing to consider with make up, any kind of make up
2:22:41 day policy is everybody always thinks it’s about days.
2:22:45 We have 180 school days and so we have to have 180 days and it’s
2:22:49 not days at all.
2:22:50 It’s instructional minutes.
2:22:51 Yeah.
2:22:52 And we’re in a kind of a bind more so than some other districts
2:22:56 because our instructional minutes are limited.
2:22:59 And we have those early release days every Friday.
2:23:02 So that’s 75 minutes of instructional time that we lose every
2:23:06 Friday that other districts don’t.
2:23:08 So oftentimes when we’re calculating whether we even need to
2:23:13 make up a lost day for a hurricane, it comes down to the minutes.
2:23:17 And seriously, the minute.
2:23:18 It comes down to the calculation of a minute and instructional
2:23:22 time.
2:23:22 So, you know, we’re in a delicate situation where if we miss too
2:23:26 many days, we can’t absorb those days, you know,
2:23:30 because we don’t have the instructional minutes to meet
2:23:32 statutory requirement to issue credit.
2:23:34 And so more than likely, for example, Galley High School already
2:23:40 had to close one day, opening day.
2:23:42 So calculating their instructional minutes, it’s pretty tight
2:23:45 right now for them to meet the instructional minute requirements
2:23:48 for first semester.
2:23:49 So again, if we were to close for a hurricane, we definitely
2:23:54 would probably have to make up the day.
2:23:56 We definitely would have to make up the day, especially for O’Galley.
2:23:59 So we can’t really absorb a hurricane makeup day in our calendar.
2:24:03 Some other districts, for example, I believe last year Indian
2:24:07 River was out for several days and they did not have to make up
2:24:11 any hurricane days
2:24:11 because they had enough minutes in their instructional calendar
2:24:16 still in their days of school.
2:24:18 We don’t really have that option because we are so tight on
2:24:22 instructional minutes.
2:24:23 So all I’m asking for today is, you know, kind of direction from
2:24:29 the board to if we do close for a hurricane or any other natural
2:24:33 disaster,
2:24:34 do we just pluck the days right out of Thanksgiving because
2:24:37 those are the ones on the calendar?
2:24:39 Or do we look at, can we extend first semester like into second
2:24:44 semester for a day, steal some of that time from second semester?
2:24:49 Do we look at eliminating some early release days that would be
2:24:53 negotiated with the union, that kind of thing, which we did last
2:24:57 year?
2:24:57 You know, that kind of thing.
2:24:58 So just kind of direction from the board, if we were to close,
2:25:03 is it, hey, just take those days on the calendar or be creative
2:25:08 and start looking at other ways to make up the minutes?
2:25:11 So I’m just checking, I apologize, but I just checking the
2:25:15 national weather forecast for the hurricane and it’s showing
2:25:19 that Wednesday 2:00 a.m. is the line where we would see a little
2:25:23 bit and then it’s Wednesday 8:00 a.m.
2:25:24 It’ll be almost centered out over Florida.
2:25:27 So I’m okay.
2:25:30 First off, I think we need to make a decision on giving
2:25:32 direction as to whether we’re going to try to stay open or not.
2:25:35 I don’t think we get to decide that.
2:25:37 No, we just give him, you asked for direction?
2:25:39 No, no, no, not on whether to stay open or not.
2:25:41 Yeah, we don’t get to decide that.
2:25:42 We’re giving direction on where he’s, if we should close, where
2:25:45 is he pulling those days from?
2:25:46 Oh, you don’t want us to give you any, okay, all right.
2:25:49 I’ll take all the input I can get.
2:25:51 But I would push, my recommendation would be to hold
2:25:56 Thanksgiving harmless and to push into the next area.
2:26:01 You can play around a lot there.
2:26:02 Yeah, my recommendation would be the same.
2:26:04 Be creative.
2:26:05 I hate that we are so tied with the minutes.
2:26:08 So if there’s anything we can do there on talking, you know, I
2:26:11 know that part of that is negotiating we have to do.
2:26:14 So be creative, but yeah, I would protect Thanksgiving.
2:26:17 That’s a really great time for a lot of families.
2:26:19 I know a lot of our students are absent that time anyway.
2:26:21 So this–
2:26:22 Yeah, I think oftentimes if you do have to schedule makeup days,
2:26:29 you know that in all likelihood,
2:26:31 if you schedule them on a holiday, even a Monday holiday or, you
2:26:36 know, not a Monday holiday,
2:26:37 but a Monday teacher workday or something where students weren’t
2:26:40 planning on being there,
2:26:41 you don’t have, you know, strong attendance on those days.
2:26:44 Right.
2:26:45 So you’re always looking for, you know, sound instructional days.
2:26:48 You know, and that’s the thing, you know, not to belabor the
2:26:52 point, but if we did not have early release days every Friday,
2:26:57 we would not really be worried about makeup days right now for
2:27:02 one day of a hurricane because we would easily have the
2:27:05 instructional minutes available to make up that time.
2:27:07 So, you know, because of the minutes that we lose every Friday,
2:27:11 that’s why we’re in kind of a bind.
2:27:13 Yeah.
2:27:14 And so, you know, we’ll sit down and look at the math and see
2:27:17 where we would, you know, if we need to push into second
2:27:21 semester or not.
2:27:21 And if we don’t close, then we don’t have to worry about it.
2:27:25 Right.
2:27:25 But I just wanted to make sure, you know, what the direction of
2:27:28 the board was to protect Thanksgiving.
2:27:30 That’s all I needed to know.
2:27:31 Yeah.
2:27:32 Yep.
2:27:33 Yes.
2:27:34 And you guys, I guess you don’t want us to give you any
2:27:36 direction.
2:27:36 He wanted to make a decision today.
2:27:37 I was like, I’ll tell you, I just, I enjoy the kids staying in
2:27:41 school, but you have to make a tough decision.
2:27:43 So you make that and we’ll support, I’ll support you in any way
2:27:46 you do.
2:27:46 Well, we should make that decision early this afternoon.
2:27:49 Yep.
2:27:50 All right.
2:27:51 So.
2:27:52 You guys good?
2:27:53 I think we’re good.
2:27:54 Gene, Gene has something to say.
2:27:55 He turned on his mic.
2:27:56 Oh, I turned it off.
2:27:57 Because you got positioned.
2:27:58 Did you have it on?
2:27:59 He got up there.
2:28:00 He was like, put his hands together.
2:28:01 I thought, man, here we go.
2:28:02 That’s all I have.
2:28:03 Go ahead.
2:28:04 No, no, I don’t have anything else.
2:28:05 Dr. Rendon, thank you so much.
2:28:07 Mr. Paul, thank you so much for his stuff.
2:28:09 Thank you, staff, for everything.
2:28:10 I think we’re good.
2:28:11 With that, adjourn the meeting.
2:28:13 All right.
2:28:33 Thank you.