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 (was not present)

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 9:02 a.m.

A.    Open Discussion

Gulf Coast High School (a charter school operated by the Intervention Group, Inc.)

Upon inquiry by Dr. Jenkins, Mr. Charles Thomas, Director of Alternative Education, stated that the current charter agreement with Gulf Coast High School would end on June 30, 2002. (NOTE:  The following discussion refers to issues which were addressed at the May 17, 2002 Emergency Meeting and May 24, 2002 Special Meeting, regarding a tragic drowning incident that involved a student enrolled at Gulf Coast High School.)  Dr. DeWitt questioned whether there was “truth” to the article in the Pensacola News Journal, which indicated that Gulf Coast High School had re-employed those teachers who were previously terminated as a result of the drowning incident.  Mrs. Stidham expressed concerns with the re-employment of those teachers, noting “that was not what was indicated” to the Board at previous meetings.  She was also concerned with the ‘charter’ for Dixon Elementary School, noting that it was “run by the same group (Intervention Group, Inc.).”  Dr. Jenkins stated that he did not believe that the drowning incident should affect the ‘charter’ for Dixon Elementary School.  Board Members questioned whether the decision to re-employ the previously terminated teachers was that of the Intervention Group, Inc. or the Board of Directors (of Gulf Coast High School).

The Board recognized Otha Leverette, III, consultant for Gulf Coast High School, who stated that “the article in the Pensacola News Journal was not completely accurate,” noting that only four (4) of the eight (8) previously terminated teachers were re-employed.  He stated that the re-employment of those teachers was based upon official transcripts of the their testimonies regarding the drowning incident.  Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, the Superintendent stated that he had various concerns with the renewal of the charter agreement (with Gulf Coast High School) including “those regarding employees (referring to the re-employment issue).”  He stated that he would present a recommendation to the Board at the July Regular Meeting regarding the renewal of the charter agreement with Gulf Coast High School.

One-Half Cent Sales Tax Extension

NOTE:  The following discussion refers to a special referendum election, which will be held on September 10, 2002 regarding the One-Half Cent Sales Tax Extension.

At the request of Mrs. Stidham, Ms. Lynn Morris, member, Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) for Facilities, addressed the Board regarding the fund raising and promotion campaign for the extension of the One-Half Cent Sales Tax.  Ms. Morris stated that Mr. Ronnie Arnold, Director of Information Services, gave an update on the fund raising and promotion campaign at the June 13, 2002 meeting (of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) for Facilities).  She noted that Committee members were concerned that there “was now less than three months before the election and nothing has been done (in regards to promotion and fundraising).”  In response, the Superintendent stated that the “the assumption that nothing has been done is false.”  He explained that because this particular campaign was for an ‘extension’ on an already existing tax, it was “not necessary to do that year in advance work because the community is already aware.”  He believed that a “campaign that is to be launched effectively, needs to be launched probably the first or second week of August.”  Mrs. Stidham requested that the Superintendent provide the Board with an update regarding the fund raising and promotion campaign.

Old Hometown Building

Dr. DeWitt stated that he had received a request (via email message) from the West Florida Historic Preservation, Inc., for “formal notification,” as to whether the District would continue to use the ‘Old Hometown’ building (in Historic Pensacola Village).    (NOTE:  The Old Hometown program was closed by previous Board action due to budget constraints.)  Mr. Paul Fetsko, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, explained that the building would remain in the possession of the District through August, at which time notification would be received regarding the approval or denial of the ‘Teaching American History’ grant.  He stated that if the grant were approved, then the intent of the District would be to continue to operate out of that building, for use as an in-service training center for social studies teachers.  Dr. DeWitt stated that he would forward the email message to Mr. Fetsko, for a response to the West Florida Historical Preservation, Inc.

II.  COMMENTS FROM SUPERINTENDENT

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

III.   APPROVAL OF MINUTES

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

IV.  COMMITTEE REPORTS

1.   Report from Mike Adkins, Audit Committee

Mr. Adkins reviewed information provided to the Board regarding the “audit findings” for Escambia High School (Item V.G.1.5) and Ferry Pass Middle School (Item V.G.1.7).

He noted that one of the “findings” for Ferry Pass Middle School included “Investing of Idle Funds.”  He explained that State Board Rules require that schools invest idle funds in any medium of investment (legal for public funds), in order to earn the maximum possible yield.  He noted that several schools including Ferry Pass Middle, maintain a substantial balance in their school checking accounts and have no investments.  He stated that the Committee recommends that schools “seek out investment arrangements to maximize return on those idle funds.”  Upon inquiry by Ms. Finkelstein, Mrs. Barbara Linker, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Business Affairs, stated that a district-wide policy did exist regarding the “investing of internal funds” and noted that staff would discuss that issue with the Superintendent.  The Superintendent noted that staff must “first decide whether the investing of internal funds is a good idea or not.”  Mr. Adkins stated that he and Mr. Sam Scallan, Director of Internal Auditing, had continued their monthly meetings with the Superintendent and noted that those meetings have been very beneficial in “keeping communication going.”

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

Dr. DeWitt noted that Board Members had received an “update” (via email message) from Mr. Burns regarding current legislative issues.

V.  CONSENT AGENDA

A.   Curriculum and Instruction

6.   The Charter Agreement between the School Board of Escambia County, Florida and Dixon Elementary School

[NOTE:  1) Motion to “approve the charter application by A.A. Dixon Elementary (with staff to negotiate the contract) and to lease the Dixon building and contents within, for $1 per year (for the terms of the charter) to the Intervention Group, Inc.” was approved at the March 4, 2002 Special Meeting.  2) Concerns regarding the ‘charter’ for Dixon Elementary School were also discussed earlier in the meeting under Item I.A. “Open Discussion - Gulf Coast High School”]

Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, Ms. Doris Black, Chairperson of the Governing Board for Dixon Elementary School (Charter), stated that while the Intervention Group, Inc., was the “applicant in the charter application (approved at the March 4, 2002),” the governing board [for Dixon Elementary School (Charter)] would actually be “running the school.”  She noted that previous Board action indicated that the Dixon building and its internal contents would be leased to the applicant (Intervention Group, Inc.) however, many of the internal contents (i.e., instructional materials, food service items, equipment, furniture, etc.) had been removed by the District.  The Superintendent explained that ‘food service’ items (i.e., utensils, ovens, etc.) had been provided to the District by the federal food service program and since the charter application indicated that Dixon Elementary School (Charter) would not be participating in that program, those items were removed.  Upon inquiry by Ms. Finkelstein, Mr. Charles Thomas, Director of Alternative Education, confirmed that an inventory audit of the internal contents of Dixon Elementary had been conducted.  He stated that the only computers that were removed from the Dixon building were those that were “attached to a grant that went with the teacher or the program.”  He noted that because the charter application indicated that Dixon Elementary School (Charter) would be “moving toward some other venues with regard to textbooks,” there were some textbooks that were removed from the building.  Dr. DeWitt was concerned that “there seems to be some changes between the application (approved at the March 4, 2002 Special Meeting) and the agreement as presented.”  Mrs. Stidham stated that she “was unsure as to the role of the Intervention Group, Inc.”  She questioned whether the governing board would “report” to the Intervention Group, Inc. and whether the Intervention Group, Inc. would have the “ability to make changes.”  Mr. Negron advised the Board “to make absolutely certain with whom it is that you are contracting.”  He stated that “if the intent is to now substitute a party that is different than the entity that made the initial application, then that needs to be done formally.”  He noted that the application that was originally approved by the Board (at the March 4, 2002 Special Meeting) was “upon which the Board is basing this agreement” and noted that the application “listed the Intervention Group, Inc. as the party with which it is contracting.”  He advised the Board “not to proceed on representations made before you today that this board [governing board for Dixon Elementary School (Charter)] is operating and they’re in charge” and noted that the Board would have to “agree to substitute the applicant on the initial application with this subsequent group and we need some sort of representation in writing from the Intervention Group, Inc. saying that they assign this application to this group so that we’re clear that the Intervention Group, Inc. is not the party with which we’re contracting.”  Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, the Superintendent stated that he would notify Board Members by the end of the day, as to whether or not he would delete this item from the agenda.

7.   Letter of Agreement between Bay District Schools and Escambia County Schools for BEACON Learning Center

Mr. Don Manderson, Director of Instructional Technology, explained that Bay District Schools (Florida) had received a federal grant to create an “instructional technology resource center” and noted that this agreement would allow District (Escambia County) high school teachers to take advantage of the resources provided by that center.  In answer to Ms. Finkelstein’s question, Mrs. Laura Shaud, Director of Budgeting, stated that Bay District Schools (Florida) would reimburse any costs incurred by the District (Escambia County). 

15. Beggs Educational Center Location for 2002-2003

NOTE:  This item was a request for the Beggs Educational Center to remain at the present location (McReynolds site) for the 2002-2003 school year.

Upon inquiry by Mrs. Stidham, Mr. Ron Peacock, Director of Facilities Planning, stated that the cost for placing three “existing and available portable buildings” at the McReynolds site would be approximately $36,000 ($12,000 per portable).  In answer to Mrs. Stidham’s question, Mr. Paul Fetsko, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, stated that there was “space” directly behind the McReynolds building “where the portables could be arranged.”  Mr. Fetsko believed that the addition of three portable buildings could increase the student population by approximately 75 to 90 students.  (NOTE:  The following discussion refers to Board action from the August 21, 2001 regarding Item V.E.1.B.9 “McReynolds Property”)  Mrs. Stidham noted that prior Board action had indicated “that the District would continue to ‘market’ the property, with the understanding that it would not be available until May 2002.”  Upon inquiry by Mrs. Stidham, Mr. Fetsko stated that the property was “still being marketed” but noted that there “was no one who is actively pursuing it.”  

17.  Cooperative Agreement between School Board of Escambia County, Florida and the Association of Retarded Citizens (ARC) Gateway/Sacred Heart Hospital for 2002-2003

Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, Mr. Paul Fetsko, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, stated that he would confirm (prior to the June 18, 2002 Regular Meeting) that although these were “contracted services,” the District would “collect Medicaid for those Exceptional Student Education (ESE) students that are eligible for Medicaid reimbursement.”

23.    Alabama & Gulf Coast Railway Company Agreements (4)

Mrs. Stidham noted that the Board previously rejected these agreements at the May 21, 2002 Regular Meeting due to “liability issues.”  Upon inquiry by Mrs. Stidham, Mr. Negron explained that the company (Alabama & Gulf Coast Railway) was originally “asked to limit the broad language” within the agreement however, the company refused and “basically stuck to their language.”  He stated that while there was “nothing unlawful” about the agreements, he did have concerns with the “exposure.”  Mr. Don Manderson, Director of Instructional Technology, briefly described the “physical extent of the exposure.”  While he did not believe that the “exposure” was excessive, he stated that “the benefit would certainly outweigh any minimal exposure that we have."

B.    Finance

7.   Budget Amendments

a)   Resolution 9: General Operating Fund

I.   Revenue – Amendments Between Revenue, Appropriations & Reserves

d)   Transportation

Mr. Shawn Dennis, Director of Transportation, reviewed information provided to the Board addressing the FTE Transportation “shortfall” (for the 2001-2002 school year) budget amendment.

II.   Amendments Between Appropriations & Reserves

c) Instructional Materials

Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, Mrs. Barbara Linker, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Business Affairs, stated that the District would be reimbursed 100% for the cost of instructional materials.  She explained that the District was “allowed to spend in this fiscal year, funds that would be appropriated next year” and noted that the District “should not have to find any textbook funds from any other sources.:

e) Lost and Damaged Textbooks

Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, Mrs. Barbara Linker, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Business Affairs, explained that “when students pay for lost textbooks, that money is appropriated and allocated into this project for lost and damaged textbooks.”  She noted that the amount listed was “an accumulation of that revenue over a period of time.”

AMENDED     d)   Resolution 9: Capital Projects Fund

5.   1999/00 Capital Improvement Tax Construction Fund 3710, (Pages 18-19)

a.   Reallocate funds ($100,812.65) from undistributed fire protection system project to Maintenance Department trucks project.  Maintenance initiated this budget amendment to facilitate funding for the purchase of trucks for the maintenance department.  Funds were transferred from a completed project.

b. Reallocate funds from Undistributed electrical renovation project ($8,417.75 decrease) and Pine Forest High School fire protection system project ($4,891.00 decrease) to Maintenance Department computer equipment project ($13,308.75 increase).  Maintenance initiated this budget amendment to facilitate funding for computer equipment for the maintenance department.  Funds were transferred from completed projects.

Mrs. Stidham expressed concerns regarding the budget amendments to facilitate funding for the purchase of trucks and computer equipment for the maintenance department.  She stated that while the purchases “were probably needed,” she was not certain that the Board should “structure” the budget for those particular purchases, “when possibly, once projects are finished there might be some remaining dollars that could be used at the end of the fiscal year.”  Upon inquiry by Mrs. Stidham, Mr. Mark Purcell, Director of Maintenance, and Mrs. Barbara Linker, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Business Affairs, explained the ‘reasoning’ for the budget amendments initiated by the maintenance department.  (NOTE: The following statement refers to a special referendum election, which will be held on September 10, 2002 regarding the One-Half Cent Sales Tax Extension.)  Mrs. Stidham was concerned with “committing large sums of money” until “we know where we stand with regard to the sales tax.”

8. Financial Status Report

Dr. DeWitt noted that there were “many (grant) funds that do not carry forward, with a final date to encumber of June 30, 2002.”  Mrs. Sheree’ Cagle, Director of Comprehensive Planning, stated that she had notified “everyone that has one (a grant) that is ending (on June 30, 2002)” and had been “assured that the funds would be gone (used).”

C. Human Resources Services

1.  Instructional/Professional

f.   Special Requests

19.  Request approval to complete submission of the attached 2002-2003 Department Personnel Planning Document with changes from the original pages which were submitted to the April 26, 2002 Board Meeting            

In response to concerns expressed by Mrs. Stidham, the Superintendent stated that he would provide the job description for the “Manager VII – Central Shipping and Receiving” position, as it was not included in the supporting documentation.  Dr. DeWitt expressed concerns with several requests for the addition of notes to the Personnel Planning Document, stating that the abolishment of certain positions was “contingent upon” the establishment of other positions.  He noted that the Board had already approved the Personnel Planning Document (at the April 26, 2002 Special Meeting) with the abolishment of certain positions and that those positions had not been “contingent upon” the establishment of other positions.  Mrs. Stidham noted that one of the requests for an addition of notes, indicated “that if the Financial Analysts positions were not approved, then certain positions would be reinstated,” and noted that those positions “were abolished.”  Dr. DeWitt noted that several of the requests (regarding the Personnel Planning Document) from the April 26, 2002 Special Meeting, were tabled “until we have an accepted administrative salary schedule.”  He stated that he would not support “any of these until that was received.”  Upon inquiry by Mrs. Stidham, Dr. Doug Garber, Director of Human Resource Services, stated that a document (Compensation Study) did exist and includes an analysis of salaries, based on data provided to the company from the employees of the District.  Mrs. Stidham indicated that the Board had not yet seen the document and when the Board is asked to look at different positions in the district and district staff is requesting that a particular pay grade should be reflected for that position, the Board is “working in the dark” because they do not have this study to determine if they are above or below what was recommended in the study.  The Superintendent indicated that the Board would have the document by the afternoon.  Dr. DeWitt stated that he was not going to allow promotions until “we look at the total picture.”  Dr. Garber stated that he would schedule an appointment during this week with each Board Member to explain the Compensation Study as it was explained to him.  Dr. DeWitt stated that “until we know what we’re going to do for raises for everybody, there’s no way we can go around here creating new positions giving certain people step raises until we get the total picture.”  Mrs. Linker stated that it was not her intent to ask for the abolishment of the Manager of Business Services unless the other employees were compensated for taking on extra duties.  Dr. DeWitt explained that the Board did abolish the position of Manager of Business Services.

3.  Risk Management

a. Vision Care Contract – Vision Care Program for employees

Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, Mr. Joe Bernard, Director of Risk Management, stated that the cost associated with the Vision Care Contract (renewal) “was the same as last year, which is no cost to the district.”

b.  Property Insurance

Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, Mr. Joe Bernard, Director of Risk Management, stated that the Board could expect approximately a 50% increase in insurance premiums.  He explained that the District had renewed the property schedule to make certain that all schools are “insured for value.”  He noted that due to the volatility of the insurance market, the exact renewal premium would not be known until the last week in June.

5.  Affirmative Action

a.   Memorandum of Understanding between Escambia District School Board and EEA/Escambia Education Clerical/Classroom Associations for the Cohort Program for Teacher Preparation for Educational Support Personnel

b.   Cohort Program for Teacher Preparation for Educational Support Personnel

(NOTE:  These items refer to discussion from the April 26, 2002 Special Meeting regarding the ‘Home Grown Teacher Cohort Program.’)  Dr. DeWitt was concerned that there was “nothing in the backup information regarding employees paying back the District if they in fact, did not teach (in the District) after completing their course work.”  Mrs. Stidham noted that the backup information actually stated that applicants were allowed “to withdraw without prejudice from the program at anytime prior to completion.”  Dr. Doug Garber, Director of Human Resource Services, noted that the Board had directed him to “go to the negotiating table” regarding this issue and explained that “what is presented, is the best that could be negotiated.”  He noted that in the ‘negotiating’ discussions, all stakeholders involved, believed that “these employees would serve our District.”  He also noted that the District “could not guarantee someone a job once the coursework was completed.”  Dr. DeWitt and Mrs. Stidham stated that they could not support these items “when there was no commitment from the employee that they would stay in the District to teach.”  The Superintendent explained that the District was in need of Special Education teachers, particularly minority Special Education teachers.  He believed that this was “an opportunity, although not full proof,” and noted that if this plan should not work, then staff would develop another.  While he acknowledged that there was “a chance that some of these employees will move away,” but believed that it was “a chance that the District should be willing to take in an effort to recruit in a critical need area.”  Dr. Jenkins believed that “if the District can retain even 65% of the people who are trained, then the District would still be on the plus side.”

D.    Purchasing

6.     Bid Award: Flexible Spending Account Administration, RFP #024101

Dr. DeWitt questioned the rationale for the outsourcing of the “Flexible Spending Account Administration,” when, as he believed, those services “could be incorporated into an existing job description.”  The Superintendent stated that it was simply “not cost effective, to administer those services in-house.”  Mrs. Barbara Linker, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Business Affairs, and Mrs. Linda Lewis, Director of Payroll, explained that outsourcing of the “Flexible Spending Account Administration” was critical to finance operations.  They noted that those functions (i.e., marketing of the plan, receiving of claims, auditing of claims, reimbursement of claims) were performed by staff positions that had now been eliminated.  Mrs. Lewis stated that if she would have anticipated that those functions would not be outsourced, she “would not have eliminated a position because of the prospect of now being short-handed.” 

7.    Bid Award: Collator, Bid #024902

Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, Mr. Don Manderson, Director of Instructional Technology, stated that he had conducted an analysis approximately two (2) years ago (when the MGT Study recommended a review of the Print Shop operation) regarding the use of a company such as Xerox, to replace the Print Shop capabilities and other functions.  He noted that the ‘final numbers’ of that analysis, “showed something like $280,000 to about $350,000 favoring the current operation of the Print Shop.”  He explained that as discussed at previous meetings, the purchase of updated equipment (i.e., digital typesetting, collating/binding, multi-color printing), would “bring the District to a point to where we could take advantage of some current technology.”  Mrs. Stidham expressed concern that “we can do all these wonderful things, but if it (Print Shop) is not being used, then what is the cost benefit.”  Mr. Manderson stated that he believed that all departments and schools had been directed to use the Print Shop for all processes (i.e., printing, binding, reproduction, etc.).

11.   Bid Renewal / Extension: Workers’ Compensation Managed Care Arrangement, RFP #11-99

Upon inquiry by Dr. DeWitt, Mr. Joe Bernard, Director of Risk Management, stated that this item was a renewal and extension of the bid to provide administrative services for Workers’ Compensation Managed Care claims, as required by Worker’s Compensation Law.

12.    Bid Renewal / Extension: Employee Assistance Program, RFP #102-90

Dr. DeWitt questioned why the Employee Assistance Program would be funded from the General Fund, rather than the Insurance Trust Fund.  Mrs. Barbara Linker, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Business Affairs, explained that the Insurance Trust Fund contained the “premiums that employees pay for their healthcare and prescriptions,” and noted that the Employee Assistant Program was an additional program.  Mr. Joe Bernard, Director of Risk Management, explained that this particular program would provide counseling services to District employees, including families, up to four visits, free of charge.”  Dr. DeWitt stated that in the future, he would “like to see this item explored as the dental item is being explored.”  He noted that with each benefit (counseling and dental) an “employee with a large family has the greater benefit than just a single person.”  He believed that an employee with a family should be charged for those services.  Mr. Bernard noted that monthly payments were based on $0.55 per month per employee.

18.  Bid Renewal / Extension: Portable Building Leases, Bid #42-95 & RFP #55-97

Mrs. Stidham noted that this item indicated that Byrneville Elementary (Charter) would lease two portable buildings from the District and Dixon Elementary (Charter) would lease one portable building.  She questioned why “these schools cannot just take over the leases themselves.”  Mr. Barry Boyer, Purchasing Manager, explained that “it was much cleaner since the lease is already under our (the District’s) name and part of our bid - to just go ahead and pay those few months out on the lease and then deduct it from whatever billings goes to the charter schools.”  He believed that was the best option, rather than trying to re-negotiate a new lease with the leaseholder.  Mr. Charles Thomas, Director of Alternative Education, stated that both Byrneville Elementary (Charter) and Dixon Elementary (Charter) had agreed to this option and noted that the ‘charter agreements’ (for both schools) would include language to reflect that agreement.   

32.  Agreement Renewal / Extension: IBM Mainframe Equipment Maintenance and System Software Support

Mrs. Stidham suggested that “some kind of study be done of the Management Information Systems (MIS) department so we can see where we are at (referring to “having servers versus mainframe.”)

48.  Change Notice #1 to Purchase Order #226248 (GE Capital IT Solutions)

Upon inquiry by Ms. Finkelstein, Mr. Barry Boyer, Purchasing Manager, explained that the “additional expenditure” of $30,000 would result in a “new total expenditure” of $130,000.  He noted that the current volume of repairs had exceeded original estimates.

E.    Operations

No discussion was held.

F.   Student Transfers

Dr. Jenkins expressed concerns with student transfers that were approved based on “hardship.”  He suggested that criteria be developed to identify what constitutes a “hardship” with regard to student transfers.  Ms. Finkelstein stated that the Student Transfer Policy Revision Committee was currently “working on” that issue.

G.   Internal Auditing

No discussion was held.

VI.   UNFINISHED BUSINESS

No items were submitted.

VII.   NEW BUSINESS

A.     Proposed Additions or Revisions to School District Rules

No discussion was held.

B.   Items from the Board

1.   Appointment to Escambia County Planning Board – John DeWitt

Dr. DeWitt noted that the Board had received a request (by way of letter from the County Attorney) for appointment of a representative of the School District to sit as a non-voting member of the Escambia County Planning Board.  Dr. DeWitt noted that a formal motion would be made at the June Regular Meeting, to appoint Ms. Finkelstein, (who had volunteered to represent the School District in that capacity), to the Escambia County Planning Board.

2.   eAgenda – John DeWitt

Dr. DeWitt explained that eAgenda was a method used by several school districts in Florida, for the electronic submission and posting of agendas and supporting documentation, to a web-site specifically designated for such.  He believed that there could be a cost savings associated with implementing a method such as eAgenda, noting that it could reduce the cost of “copying” many sets of “agenda books.”  He believed that it could also increase public awareness regarding agenda items, noting that the public would also have access to the designated web-site.  The Superintendent believed that the eAgenda was “a good idea” but was concerned with the associated costs.  Mrs. Stidham stated that she too, had concerns regarding associated costs for the implementation of the eAgenda.         

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 12:10 p.m.

Attest:       Approved:

___________________________________

Superintendent                      Chairman