The School Board of Escambia County, Florida, convened in Workshop Meeting at 9:00 a.m., in the Board Room, at the Dr. Vernon McDaniel (Administration) Building, 215 West Garden Street, Pensacola, Florida, with the following present:

Chairman: Dr. John DeWitt           

Vice Chairman: Ms. Linda Finkelstein

Board Members:            Mr. Gary L. Bergosh

Mrs. Cary Stidham

Dr. Elmer Jenkins

School Board Attorney:  Mr. Francisco M. Negron, Jr.

Superintendent of Schools: Mr. Jim Paul

I. CALL TO ORDER

Dr. DeWitt called the Regular Workshop to order at 9:05 a.m.  He explained that due to an Emergency Meeting that was called, the Workshop would recess at 9:30 a.m.

Due to time constraints, the following item was moved to the front of the agenda:

The Ultimate PEP Rally Event – Gary Bergosh (Item VII.B.2)

Upon request by Mr. Bergosh, Mr. Jeff Godfrey, Athletes in Action of West Florida (sponsors of ‘The ‘Ultimate PEP Rally’), briefly reviewed information that was previously provided to the Board regarding this event.  He explained that ‘The Ultimate PEP Rally’ event, which would be held at the Pensacola Civic Center during November/December 2002, would consist of a two (2) hour “pep rally style” presentation in the morning, and a music group concert and ‘non-denominational’ presentation in the evening.  He stated that the funding for this event “was totally outside the District budget,” noting that all revenue for the event would come from sponsors or donations.  The purpose of the event, was “to inform students that there are consequences to violence and to promote positive ‘peer pressure’ by having professional athletes share their stories.”  Dr. Jenkins had concerns, based on information he had received, that the ‘Athletes in Action of West Florida’ was “tied to a group with a religious focus” of a similar name.  Mr. Godfrey explained that ‘Athletes in Action of West Florida’ was strictly a local organization that was not “tied to any national group.”  Upon inquiry by Dr. Jenkins, Mr. Godfrey explained that no “religious theme” would come up during the morning or evening presentation, and noted that the “theme” of the entire event was simply “non-violence.”  Dr. Jenkins questioned whether the District, if “connected” with this event, would be “in trouble” should the afternoon presentation involve a “religious type theme.”  Mr. Negron stated that as noted in the documentation provided, the “stated mission” of the event, consisted of a “faith based process,” which he noted, “means religion.”  He explained that “supreme court rulings make it very clear that public agencies have to express neutrality towards religion” and “also make it clear that neutrality does not mean endorsement of.”  He had concerns not only with the “stated mission” of the event which consisted of a “faith based process,” but also that “they will use that as a ‘platform’ to invite students to participate in a religious activity” which “could well be considered to be a open forum for endorsement of religion.”  Dr. Jenkins stated while he was supportive of the morning presentation as long as the ‘theme’ was “strictly athletically inclined”, he “had a problem” with the evening presentation, because he believed “ that the focus would change to a ‘religious theme’.”  In response to comments by Mr. Godfrey, Mr. Negron questioned “what assurances and what processes will you give this Board” that the group would not use the morning session as “a ‘platform’ to invite students to participate in a religious activity,” and that “you will ensure that all of your speakers will not use that as an opportunity to invite students to a religious activity.”  Mr. Negron stated that his concern was that “once the cat is out of the bag you can’t put it back in” and “given the fact that you are an identified faith based organization, it seems hard for this Board now to ignore that fact and to suspend their belief as it were, given the fact that your stated mission was to invite participation in later activities.”  Mr. Godfrey stated that the sponsors would “like for a Board Member to be involved “in this process to give us some direction and guidance on what we need to do to make sure that we don’t step out of line in any way, because this is not a one time event” but rather an event “that we want to do every year.”  He further stated that all ‘speakers’ involved in the event, could “sign all the forms” or “come before the Board and we can do a presentation on what we’re going to do” to ensure that this event does not have a “religious” theme. He also noted that if necessary, the evening presentation could be eliminated.  Mrs. Stidham suggested that the event be held on a “half-day.”  The Superintendent did not believe that the group would use the morning presentation as a ‘platform’ to invite students to participate in a “religious” activity during the evening presentation, noting that the evening presentation was voluntary.  He stated that “faith based” groups (i.e., Power Team), had in the past, held events at individual schools.  He stated that he appreciated the efforts of this particular group, but noted that the District had to “careful not to break the law.”  He believed that the benefit of the two (2) hour rally would outweigh any “disruption” to the high schools.  He encouraged the Board to support this event, with the understanding that it would not involve any “religious slant.”  Mr. Negron stated that he did not “know if it (the event) would be covered under the Equal Access to Education Act – which provides a limited public forum and non-discrimination on the basis of religion and so forth.”  He noted that this event would involve student participation during school hours, which was “clearly not the same thing as simply providing a religious club to meet after school – which is permissible under the current state of the law.”  Upon inquiry by the Superintendent, Mr. Negron stated that he did not believe “you can revise this program – faith is an integral religiosity – religiousness is an integral part – whatever you want to call it – of this program,” noting “that’s how they approach the non-violence.”

The Board recognized the following speakers, who expressed their concerns regarding this issue: Susan Watson, Elwyn Kernstock and Roger Goldberg. 

The Regular Workshop recessed at 9:35 a.m.

The Regular Workshop reconvened at 9:50 a.m., on May 20, 2002 with Dr. DeWitt, Mr. Bergosh, Mrs. Stidham, Dr. Jenkins, and the Superintendent present.  Mr. Negron entered the Workshop at 9:52 a.m. and Ms. Finkelstein entered the Workshop at 10:10 a.m.

A.    Open Discussion

No discussion was held.

II. COMMENTS FROM SUPERINTENDENT

The Superintendent listed the additions, deletions and amendments to the agenda.

III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes for all April meetings will be presented for Board approval.

IV. COMMITTEE REPORTS

1. Report from Mike Burns, Legislative Consultant to the School Board

 Mr. Burns gave a brief update on budget issues, the School Code Rewrite and local legislation (i.e., Dodd Claims Bill, Civil Service Bill).

Mr. Negron entered the Workshop at 9:52 a.m.

2.Update on 2002-2003 Budget

Mrs. Barbara Linker, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Business Affairs, gave an update on the 2002-2003 Budget.

Ms. Finkelstein entered the Workshop at 10:10 a.m.

3. Update on the School Readiness Uniform Screening System

Mr. Paul Fetsko, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, gave a brief update on the School Readiness Uniform Screening System.

V.  CONSENT AGENDA

A.  Curriculum and Instruction

1.   School Health Services Contract Renewal

Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, Mrs. Barbara Linker, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Business Affairs, stated that the funding source for this item was in fact, the ‘General Revenue Fund.’  Ms. Karen Thoennes, Coordinator of Health Services, explained that this item was a renewal contract to maintain existing health services of twenty-four (24) Health Support Technicians. 

11.  Co-nect Inc. Comprehensive School Reform Partnership Agreement

Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, Mr. Wayne Odom, Director of Title I, explained that this agreement implements the outside technical assistance component required in the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD) project grant for O.J. Semmes Montessori School.  In answer to Dr. DeWitt’s questions, Ms. Modeste McCorvey, principal of O.J. Semmes Montessori School, explained that several years ago O.J. Semmes Elementary was a complete “montessori” school.  However, over the past three (3) years, teachers have transferred, and there has been no money for continuous training, therefore, “montessori has become a school within a school.”

21. Memorandum of Understanding between the School Board of Escambia County and CAP Head Start Program 2002-2003

Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, Mr. Wayne Odom, Director of Title I, explained that this was a ‘collaborative arrangement’ that had been made in the past, to accommodate the CAP Headstart Program on District campuses. He noted that while students that are eligible for the CAP Headstart Program, would be eligible for District Exceptional Student Education (ESE) programs as well, it “was a matter of capacity.”

Dr. DeWitt noted that there were various errors (i.e., misspellings, wrong dates, inconsistencies, wrong amounts, grammatical errors) contained in the backup information for several items under Curriculum and Instruction.  He asked that those errors be corrected prior to the May 21, 2002 Regular Meeting. 

B.     Finance

7.     Budget Amendments

c)     Resolution 8:  Capital Projects Fund

Upon inquiry by Mrs. Stidham, Mr. Ron Peacock, Director of Facilities Planning, stated that the site-work project at A.V. Clubbs Center was for a bus drop-off, to “get buses off the road.” 

C.Human Resources Services

1. Instructional/Professional

f.  Special Requests

5. Request approval to establish the attached job descriptions:

AMENDED

a) Manager – Educational Support Personnel

b) Specialist – Human Resources/EEOC/Affirmative Action

Mrs. Stidham stated “it seems odd” that both positions (‘Manager – Educational Support Personnel’ and ‘Specialist – Human Resources/EEOC/Affirmative Action’) require a Master’s Degree, noting that it “seems like you require more for Specialist position.”  She stated that she was not supportive of the ‘Specialist – Human Resources/EEOC/Affirmative Action’ position.  Dr. Doug Garber, Director of Human Resources Services, noted that the job description for the ‘Manager – Educational Support Personnel’ position did indicate a “Master’s Degree” or an “equivalent of a Bachelor’s Degree.”  Upon inquiry by Ms. Finkelstein, Dr. Garber stated that a meeting with Ms. Ellen Lawrence, UniServe Director, had occurred, and noted that while Ms. Lawrence was supportive of the positions, she did want the ‘union’ to “have a say in who is hired.”  Mrs. Stidham believed that the responsibilities for both positions (‘Manager – Educational Support Personnel’ and ‘Specialist – Human Resources/EEOC/Affirmative Action’) seemed “similar and overlapping.”  Dr. Jenkins was concerned that the inclusion of the affirmative action responsibilities in the job description for ‘Specialist – Human Resources/EEOC/Affirmative Action’ may “dilute” the affirmative action concept.  Mrs. Stidham stated that she was not supportive of the job description for the ‘Specialist – Human Resources/EEOC/Affirmative Action’ position, noting that she believed there was “ a better way to do this.” 

D. Purchasing

8.  Bid Award: Courier Services, RFP #022701

Upon inquiry by Mrs. Stidham, Mr. Barry Boyer, Purchasing Manager, stated that “best projections” on cost-savings for the privatization of current in-house courier services, was approximately $41,000 a year.  In answer to Dr. DeWitt’s question, Dr. Doug Garber, Director of Human Resources Services, stated that the current employees would continue to serve the District in other capacities.  Mr. Bergosh stated that this issue was discussed by the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) for Finance and noted that the “bulk of the courier service,” is the delivery of payroll checks.  Mr. Boyer noted that the cost-savings were not based solely on privatization of current in-house courier services, but also the reduction in service to three (3) days per week.

9. Bid Award: Art Paper, Bid #023904

Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, Mr. Barry Boyer, Purchasing Manager, stated that this bid award, effective ‘June 1, 2002 through May 31, 2003’ was not “fiscal-year sensitive.” 

25.Moving Services at Brentwood Middle School

Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, Mr. Ted Kirchharr, Assistant Superintendent for Operations, stated that there was a “need” for these contracted moving services, noting “there’s only so many things” that existing District personnel are able to do, during the summer months.

29. Bid Award: Repaving Track at Escambia High School

Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, Mr. Ted Kirchharr, Assistant Superintendent for Operations, explained that the Facilities Planning Department “works” from a list of priorities regarding school track and tennis court repairs and replacements.  He stated that he would inform Dr. DeWitt, as to “where” Washington High School “ranked” on that priority list for track repairs.

31. Bid Award: General Renovations at Cordova Park Elementary, Scenic Heights Elementary and Workman Middle Schools

(NOTE: Bids on this project were over budget, therefore, the recommendation was to reject bids and re-bid at a later date.)

Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, Mr. Ted Kirchharr, Assistant Superintendent for Operations, stated that he would contact the principals from each of the three schools, to determine which renovations could occur during the summer months, that would not cause any major disruption to the schools.  He stated that once that was determined, the list of renovations that could be done during the school year, could be “re-packaged” and “re-bid” and the remaining renovations, could be reserved for the following summer.  Dr. DeWitt questioned whether any of the renovations could be “fast tracked.”  Mr. Kirchharr stated “not to accomplish summer work, because you’ve got to re-bid it, repackage – you’ve got to pull out those pieces that you can do during the school year – re-advertise those – re-bid those – there’s no way to get that accomplished prior to school starting.”  In answer to Dr. DeWitt’s question, Mr. Kirchharr stated that all three bids were significantly over budget, due to a variety of factors (i.e., market conditions, compressed timeframe).

E. Operations

1. Facilities Planning

B. Miscellaneous

1. Pre-qualification of Contractors

Upon inquiry by Dr. Jenkins, Mr. Ted Kirchharr, Assistant Superintendent for Operations, explained that law now requires the District, to have a list of pre-qualified contractors.

2. Transportation

A. Miscellaneous

1.  Charter School Bus Donation: Recommended Routine and Emergency Contingency Procedures 

Mr. Ted Kirchharr, Assistant Superintendent for Operations, briefly reviewed the recommended routine and emergency contingency procedures regarding charter school bus donations.  He asked for ‘consensus’ of the Board that “this is the manner in which you want us to proceed” and stated that he would “work with” Mr. Negron to prepare a formal policy to reflect these procedures.  Upon inquiry by Mrs. Stidham, Mr. Negron stated that should the charter school decide that the ‘donated bus’ was no longer needed, then the bus would revert to the District.  Mrs. Stidham and Dr. DeWitt noted that the ‘donated buses’ would be buses that were ‘declared as surplus’ by the District and therefore, believed that the policy should clearly stated that those buses are not to revert back to the District.  Upon consensus of the Board, Mr. Kirchharr stated that he would “work with” Mr. Negron to prepare a formal policy to reflect these procedures. 

F.  Student Transfers

No discussion was held.

G.  Internal Auditing

2.    Inventory Adjustment Reports

(NOTE:  Board Members expressed concerns at the April 15, 2002 Regular Workshop regarding a “missing” laptop computer.  Mr. Don Manderson, Director of Instructional Technology, stated that he would develop and present to the Board, procedures regarding security for laptop computers.)

Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, Mr. Don Manderson, Director of Instructional Technology, presented information to the Board, regarding a “tentative plan for tracking laptops.”  He stated that he would meet with district-wide school Technology Coordinators to discuss the “tentative plan.”

VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

ADD  1. Privatization of Custodial Services (tabled from April 26, 2002 Special Meeting)

Upon request by the Superintendent, Mr. Ted Kirchharr, Assistant Superintendent for Operations, stated that while the employee proposal regarding custodial services did contain “areas of concern,” it also contained areas of merit, which would require “further exploration.”  He stated “we may come back to you at some point and discuss bringing a consultant on board to assist in really further analyzing and understanding what we’re doing.  We think there’s potential there for both savings and improving quality using our in-house employees.”  Upon inquiry by Mrs. Stidham, Mr. Kirchharr stated that a report on this issue would be submitted at the July Regular Meeting.

VII. NEW BUSINESS

A. Proposed Additions of Revisions to School District Rules

No discussion was held.

B. Items from the Board

1. Request Superintendent to Form a Committee to Review and Prepare Guidelines for Selection of Age Appropriate Material to be Used for Student Performances – Personnel Representing Language Arts and Drama should be Included in Committee Membership – Guideline Recommendations to be Presented as School Board Policy at the July 2002 Regular Meeting of the School Board – Cary Stidham

Upon inquiry by Ms. Finkelstein, the Superintendent stated that the current procedure for deciding which material can be used for student performances is a “school based decision.” He explained that the principal is required to review script and “sign a form saying that they find that it meets community standards.”  In answer to Dr. DeWitt’s question, the Superintendent stated that while he believed that this issue could be handled “internally,” if the Board believed that a policy was necessary, he would schedule a meeting with ‘language arts’ and ‘drama’ personnel to discuss.  Mrs. Stidham explained that various plays had been performed by students, which she did not believe were age appropriate for students (i.e., “Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All To You” performed by Woodham High School students).  She believed that guidelines should be developed, regarding the selection of age appropriate material to be used for student performances.  Upon inquiry by Ms. Finkelstein, Mrs. Stidham stated that she believed the guidelines should apply to any play performed by high school students.  Dr. Jenkins stated that he would have concerns, if the guidelines were “too restrictive” on high school students.  The Superintendent noted there were many issues (i.e., profanity, sexual acts/innuendoes, and religious aspersions) that were not appropriate for student performances.  He believed that it was possible to “craft” guidelines that would not be “too restrictive.”  Dr. Jenkins expressed concerns regarding a similar, but separate issue regarding two schools that recently held “slave auctions,” which he noted should not occur again. 

2. The Ultimate PEP Rally Event – Gary Bergosh

(NOTE:  This item was also discussed earlier in the minutes.)

Mr. Bergosh stated that while there had been concerns expressed regarding the “entanglement” of the District with “religion” he did not believe that there would be any “entanglement,” if no laws were violated.  Upon inquiry by Mr. Bergosh, Mr. Negron stated that “with regard to this particular program, I would not recommend anything that you do, but deny it – based on it’s unconstitutional nature.”  He did not believe that there was anything that could be done with the proposed event, as presented, “to make it a constitutional endeavor.”  He believed that “religion is clearly entangled with this program, they will have a captive audience, it will be during school time” and noted that “all of those elements lead to, in my opinion, an unconstitutional entanglement with religion.”  Mrs. Stidham questioned “how it is a captive audience when you cannot make them go.”  Mr. Negron explained that legally defined, it would be a ‘captive audience’ because the students are allowed to attend the event during school hours.  Mr. Bergosh stated that he was supportive of this event, as long as all ‘speakers’ involved in the event, would “sign” the necessary form, to ensure that their presentations address “non-violence” issues only, with no mention of “faith.”  Dr. Jenkins stated that while he did support the concept of ‘The Ultimate PEP Rally,’ he was concerned that the students would be a ‘captive audience’ if allowed to participate during school hours, and suggested that the event be held after school hours.  The Superintendent questioned whether the proposal for the ‘The Ultimate PEP Rally’ could be “rewritten and re-submitted” to the Board at a later date.  Mr. Negron reiterated his comments regarding the issue of “entanglement.”  Mr. Bergosh believed that the proposal could be rewritten without any issue of “entanglement.”

C. Items from the Superintendent

No discussion was held.

D.  Items from the General Counsel

No items were submitted.

VIII.  ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the Regular Workshop adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

Attest:         

Approved:

Superintendent

Chairman