LWV: A Report Card for the Sarasota County School Board

 

Sarasota County School Board Report Card

The League of Women Voters of Sarasota has established an Observer Corps to monitor the Sarasota County School Board meetings. The goal of the Observer Corps is to objectively evaluate meetings for ethical, legal and professional conduct on the part of the board and chairperson. This evaluation will be shared with the Board and the public following each meeting.

Meeting Date: March 19, 2024

A = Consistently   B= Frequently   C= Occasionally   D= Rarely   F= Not at All 

        

Board follows and advances a written agenda. The published agenda was amended for two action items to accommodate concerns raised by community members about potential conflicts of interest prior to the meeting    This was presented by the Superintendent and approved by the School Board.	A
Board limits citizens’ comments only to opinions on topics that are in the Board’s purview. Most citizen comments at this meeting were repeated requests to address concerns of inclusivity, book restrictions and the charter school approval of the previous meeting. Many comments addressed the proposed legislation to allow chaplains in schools. While this may be perceived to be not in the board’s purview prior to a legislative action, it was clear that community members wanted to urge board members to refuse to allow chaplains in our schools, should the governor sign the bill.  Comments urging the Board to build trust within the community continued from previous meetings.  Requests for the resignation of Ms. Ziegler also continued.	B+
Board Chair does not allow speakers to personally attack board members or use abusive language. The board chair stopped one speaker saying her comment “touched on the private life of the board member.”  It was not clear to the public how the comment related to abusive language or attacks on Board members.  Chair continues to allow attacks on Ms. Ziegler (hypocrite, fascist).	C+
Board Chair treats speakers equitably. The Board Chair appeared to make an effort to greet and thank each speaker.  She displayed less physical reaction to community speaker comments with which she appeared to disagree than in the previous meeting.  However, the Chair does not treat her colleagues equitably.  The chair interrupted Mr. Edwards several times as he was seeking clarification on issues raised by the public concerning conflicts of interest and other matters on the agenda.  She did not, however, interrupt Ms. Ziegler when she was commenting extensively without an apparent topic.  That disparity is very apparent to the public and leads to questions of motive and objectivity on the part of the Chair.	C
Board adheres to Robert’s Rules of Order. One of the tenets of Robert’s Rules of Order is that only one speaker speaks at a time and that only urgent matters are cause for interruption of the speaker.   There was a clear violation of that tenet by the Board Chair in interrupting Mr. Edwards.	D+
The Board Chair runs an orderly meeting. The chair did cut the mike for speakers who ran over their time.  However, she cut off a colleague and the colleague expressed frustration at being unsupported by the other members of the board.	C+
Board delegates operational and educational decisions to the professional staff. After one student spoke of harassment, the Chair asked the Superintendent if that was something he should follow up.  Several other speakers requested follow-up on certain administrative items and they were not referred to the Superintendent.	B+
Board gives evidence of being responsive to public comment. Board seems dismissive and uninterested in public comment and does not clearly address them.  They do however defend their positions.  Mr. Enos did attempt to explain why he voted yes on the charter school in response to community concerns.  Speakers often refer to never getting responses to emails sent to Board members.   Several citizens were upset and concerned about Ms. Ziegler’s prior comments about Equality Florida.  She never addressed that concern.  Community members express feelings of being demeaned when a board member comments that the public really does not understand an issue.	D+

Additional Comments:

It is apparent that individuals speaking at the Board meetings have done extensive research on topics brought before the Board.  The time and effort put into that research is apparently never recognized by the collective board.   In fact, it appears as though it is summarily dismissed.  

Also while most board members state publicly that they want to keep politics out of the Board room, at least two of the board members at this meeting proposed the appointment of district committee members that gave the public the impression of political placements.   Whether valid or not, the mistrust grows. 

Mr. Edwards made it clear in the board member comments at the end of the meeting that he does not feel support by his fellow colleagues.  He also said he felt the board attorney did not support him.  This is a concern.  

Recommendations:

If the Board truly wants to keep politics out of the board room, the board individually and collectively need to be aligned around being non-partisan in its decisions and act accordingly.   Seeding mistrust with direct actions that initiate public skepticism is keeping the district from moving forward.

The board needs to find a way to address the concerns raise in public comment, even if it’s only to say they will give the issue further study or to thank them for the research the public has done on various issues.  

If at all possible, Ms. Ziegler should remain in her seat during board meetings.  She has left in the past two meetings which might give the impression that the public comments are unimportant.  

Submitted by:  Sarasota League of Women Voters School Board Observer Corps.

 

Sarasota LWV publishes "Report Card" on the county's School Board

 

Sarasota County School Board Report Card 

The League of Women Voters of Sarasota has established an Observer Corps to monitor the Sarasota County School Board meetings. The goal of the Observer Corps is to objectively evaluate meetings for ethical, legal and professional conduct on the part of the board and chairperson with respect to the public comment session and the meeting agenda. This evaluation will be shared with the Board and the public following each  meeting. 

Meeting ate:  

A = Consistently B= Frequently C= Occasionally D= Rarely F= Not at All  

Board follows and advances a written agenda.	A
Board limits citizens’ comments only to opinions on topics that are in the Board’s purview.  Some comments are not in the Board’s purview. Asking Ms. Ziegler to stay on, for  example, is not while asking the Board to write to the governor for her removal is.  Biblical references and prayer are not. Stopping a “woke” agenda is not. A perceived  agenda by some board members to reduce or eliminate public education is not, but it  does fall within the board’s purview to address any action or decision that speakers  link directly to these concerns.	C
Board Chair does not allow speakers to personally attack board members or use abusive language.  The chair does not consistently stop attacks on board members. Many commentators  continue to attack Ms. Ziegler and the comment, “Ask the groomer” was a personal  attack on Mr. Edwards. Ms. Marinelli came under fire for comments at the previous  meeting. Some comments walk a fine line between attack and constructive  information. We realize it is enormously difficult to walk that fine line but would hope  that the chair would be vigilant in this matter.	C
Board Chair treats speakers equitably.  The chair has a noticeably different response to speakers she appears to agree with  versus those she does not. Some are greeted with a welcome; others not. The tone  of voice in her “thank you” varies depending on the speaker. Some commenters get  more attention and eye contact by board members than others. Audience applause is   handled differently…ignoring some and closing down the meeting for another.	C-

Board adheres to Robert’s Rules of Order.  As was said after the last meeting, according to Roberts Rules of Order personal  attacks, name calling (groomer), and abusive language is not to be tolerated.	B
The Board Chair runs an orderly meeting.	C+
Board delegates operational and educational decisions to the  professional staf.  There were several opportunities during the meeting when citizen’s comments could  have been referred to administrative staff for follow-up. Teacher and students  offered specific concerns which lent themselves to further follow-up and the board  chair did not make those referrals. At previous meetings, more issues were referred  to administration.	B
Board gives evidence of being responsive to public comment. At each meeting, citizens are telling the board that they are not hearing the citizens’  concerns. Speakers continue to bring up issues that are dismissed as being  inaccurate. More often, however, they are ignored completely during the time when  board members have their turn to respond to citizens’ comments.	D+

Additional Comments: 

Two new categories were added to this Report Card this time -- one regarding the equal treatment of citizens who comment and another regarding the board’s response to public comment. We realize how difficult the work of  a school board member is and appreciate how seriously members take on the responsibility of helping educate  every child every day. We hope you will give each citizen equal attention and courtesy, listen to their concerns and suggestions, refer issues to school administration when necessary, and respond thoughtfully to the  speakers when you are able.  

We would ask board members to confine their comments to the work of the board. We feel that the comments  of one board member regarding Equality Florida and changing the narrative had nothing to do with the work at  hand. Comments such as these make us question whether any attempt is being made to project an image as a  thoughtful, non-political board. 

There was huge public outcry related to the approval of a charter school, and many speakers spoke of their  serious concerns. The public learned one board member had requested a special workshop to take a careful  look at the concerns but that request was denied by the board chair. This leads to mistrust and skepticism of  board motives. 

Recommendations: 

The board might consider whether meetings would be more productive if public comment before the business  meeting was restricted to agenda items only. After the business meeting, general comments could be heard.  When the board is aware that a certain agenda item is controversial or generating significant public interest,  time should be allotted to allow more public input. 

Submitted by: Sarasota League of Women Voters School Board Observer Corps.