Showing posts with label school board. Show all posts
Showing posts with label school board. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 9, 2024

Three Candidate Forums in July from the LWV

                                


HOSPITAL BOARD REPUBLICAN PRIMARY 

THURSDAY, JULY 11, 2024 - 5:30pm

JACARANDA LIBRARY

attend in person or watch virtually

more info view live on YouTube


 

SARASOTA SCHOOL BOARD FINAL ELECTION 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2024 - 5:30pm

JACARANDA LIBRARY

attend in person or watch virtually

more info view live on YouTube



COUNTY COMMISSION REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

(DISTRICTS 1 & 3)

MONDAY, JULY 22, 2024 - 5:30pm

VIRTUAL ONLY

more info  view live on YouTube



SUBMIT A QUESTION FOR THE CANDIDATE FORUMS

Submit Questions for the Forums

 

 

All candidates appearing on the August ballot for these contests have been invited. Of the eight candidates vying for four Hospital Board seats, six have accepted the League’s invitation to date. Of the five candidates running for the two available seats on the School Board, only three candidates, Thomas Babicz, Liz Barker and Tom Edwards have accepted at this time. 


According to the League’s website, lwvsrq.org, “All candidates are asked the same questions and asked to speak for themselves with no rebuttal.”



WHAT TO LOOK FOR IN A CANDIDATE?
CHECK OUT OUR VOTER GUIDES!


Voting for Hospital Board Members

School Board Candidate Checklist



Vote 411




League of Women Voters SRQ


Monday, March 25, 2024

LWV: A Report Card for the Sarasota County School Board

 




Description automatically generated with medium confidence


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.

 


Sunday, July 10, 2022

Proposed New Rules for Charter Schools: Sufficient or No?

This was posted to the Sarasota Voices list. It might help structure some discussion of Charter School education in Sarasota as the School Board elections proceed.


Given the mixed bag of charter school 'partnerships' clamoring for our tax money and fighting regulation at every level, these Federal Guidelines might serve to guide our local representatives in raising the bar for every such 'partnership' where the funding comes from taxpayers and the profits accrue to the investor classes. 

This week the US Department of Education released much-anticipated updates to rules for the Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter School Programs (CSP) – the Grants to State Entities and the Grants to Charter School Developers for the Opening of New Charter Schools and for the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools programs.

This is the first update to the rules since 1994 and will apply to grant applicants for this year and subsequent years. Proposed rules were released in April followed by a comment period. A total of 26,580 comments were received of which 5,770 were unique. Most were duplicates from letter-writing campaigns. According to the department, “the majority [of comments] expressed general support for the regulations and the priorities.”

The first section of the new rules lists the main points raised in the public comments and what (if any) change was made in the rules in response.

According to the department, the rules affirm its commitment to assuring access to high-quality education for all students by:

  • “Ensuring that all students – with a focus on underserved students – have access to a high-quality public education, whether in a charter school, a magnet school, a community school, or other type of public school.
  • Supporting high-quality charter schools and fulfilling our responsibility to be good stewards of federal funds. This means ensuring that recipients of taxpayer dollars across all Department discretionary and formula grant programs – including these programs – are subject to strong fiscal transparency, oversight, and accountability.
  • Recognizing the important role the federal government can play in supporting state and local efforts to increase student diversity across and within our nation’s public school system. We are at our strongest as a nation when we embrace the rich diversity across our country. Federal resources should not be used to increase racial or socioeconomic segregation and isolation.”

These goals are accomplished through several key provisions of the rules.

Limitations on applications from for-profit entities and more transparency requirements. 

  • Applicants must ensure that the for-profit management company “does not exercise full or substantial control over the charter school.” This requirement bars charter schools operated by for-profit companies from obtaining CSP funds. There are numerous such charter schools in NC.
  • Applicants who plan to contract with a for-profit management company must provide extensive information about the contract, leadership personnel, real estate, etc. and the charter school must not share legal, accounting, or auditing services with the for-profit.

Greater transparency and accountability for charter schools, state entities, and charter management operators that apply for grants.

  • Charter school grantees must hold a public hearing on proposed or expanded charter school plans. The schools are obligated to reach out to the community to encourage and provide a summary as part of the obligation.
  • Information about potential costs for prospective parents must be clearly published including fees, uniform requirements, disciplinary practices, transportation plans, and whether the school participates in the national free/reduced-price lunch program.
  • Schools must publish for-profit management contracts, names of awardee schools and their peer-reviewed applications as well as descriptions of the review process. (NC already publishes grant proposals)
  • There are new restrictions on schools spending implementation funds for planning year activities prior to the charter school being approved and securing a facility.

Submission of a needs analysis that includes

  • Evidence of community desire for the school.
  • Documentation of the school’s enrollment projections and how they were determined.
  • A demographic analysis of the district and the proposed school.
  • The projected impact on racial and socioeconomic diversity with assurances that the school will not increase racial segregation and isolation in the local school district from which the charter school would draw its students. 
  • Assurance and steps taken to ensure that the school will not negatively affect district desegregation efforts.

These new rules for future CSP grantees are common-sense ways to assure the public that taxpayer dollars are being spent to benefit our students' education and not to enrich operators or increase segregation.

For example, since 2001, 930 CSP-funded charter schools and proposed charter schools (approximately 14.5 percent) either never opened or closed prior to the end of the grant period.

These charter school closures and failures to open cost more than $174 million in federal resources provided through CSP.

The new rules that require more advance planning, evidence of need, and limits on spending without authorization all bolster the likelihood of a charter's ultimate success.

These new rules are an important first step in making sure that taxpayer dollars are not spent on schools that

  • never open or
  • open and close quickly, 
  • foster segregation, or
  • simply line the pockets of for-profit operators. 

Increased transparency will shine a light on the positive and negative aspects of the charter school programs and will hopefully lead to more improvements in the future.


Friday, July 10, 2020

Are you in?

It might come as news that Sarasota County's August 18 "Primary" is not a Primary. For both Sheriff and School Board, it's the entire election. Voting is open to all registered voters. Learn why here.

To vote on Aug. 18, you must be registered with the Supervisor of Elections. If you've not already done so, the deadline is July 20. Where to begin? Citizens for District Power can help you register, apply to vote by mail, even change party affiliation. It clarifies which districts are where, who's running in each, and why candidates unburdened by piles of developer cash have for once a real chance. Do have a look.

On the other hand, for the Board of County Commissioners, August 18 is a real Primary, for Republican voters in districts 1 & 5 only. A bit of an update on who's backing whom in these races here.

Single member districts can be a game changer - if enough of us are in the game.


Citizens for District Power


Saturday, February 27, 2016

PAC money and Sarasota's schoolchildren

Cathy Antunes:

School Board candidate Eric Robinson works for over 40 political committees. A review of their financials raises a number of issues.


Follow the Money! 
This bit of wisdom tells us to take a close look at how money moves through our political system. Understand the money flow and who is involved and you gain clarity around who influences elections and what they may expect to gain from doing so. Simple enough. But these days, following the money is a different animal. Political committees have changed the campaign funding landscape as donations are swapped from political action committee to another. Political committees are exempt from limits on donations, and can stuff voter mailboxes with a barrage of political ads late in local elections. Candidates who don’t attract lush PAC funding are unable to respond to the onslaught. This dynamic is a huge factor in City and County elections. School Board candidate Eric Robinson works for over 40 political committees. A review of their financials raises a number of issues.  Read more . . .

Political Action Committees:

More about PACs and SuperPACs:
Wikipedia
Open Secrets 
Federal Election Commission

Eric Robinson

Runs for School Board

Sarasota School Board Background

Saturday, October 24, 2015

Schools suffer as Developers get free pass

Dan Lobeck: School impact hardly begins to meet unfunded needs

Published: Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 1:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Friday, October 23, 2015 at 2:31 p.m.

On Oct. 20, Sarasota County School Board members betrayed taxpayers and schoolchildren and bowed instead to the developers who bankroll their campaigns.
The School Board adopted a very low school impact fee on new residential development — less than 26 percent of the full fee recommended by their expert consultant. It will be the third lowest school impact fee in Florida.
This despite an unfunded need of $326 million to build at least six new schools over the next 10 years, mainly to serve urban sprawl east of the interstate and south of Venice. The new low fee will cover only 13 percent of that cost, putting 87 percent of the expense on the backs of the tax-paying public.
So how will the School Board pay for new schools? Even the recommended full fee would only pay half of the cost, but with 87 percent unfunded the shortfall is severe.
The School Board, through its state association, is trying to get the Legislature to raise our school property taxes.  MORE . . . 

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Dark Money in Sarasota's School Board Politics - Antunes

School Board Member Frank Kovach announced in April he will not run for reelection after 16 years of service. Kovach said the recent nonpartisan school board race was “corrupted by cash” and he expects the trend to continue. Former Sarasota GOP chair, Eric Robinson (husband of County Commissioner Christine Robinson), has expressed interest in running for the seat Kovach intends to vacate.
When Kovach first ran for school board in 2000, $10,000 for a campaign would have been a lot. Last fall’s race between Bridget Zeigler and Ken Marsh had each candidate raising over $51,000 and $72,000, respectively, with Zeigler getting additional support from a shadowy political action committee called Citizens Against Taxation. Eric Robinson was the PAC’s chair, treasurer and registered agent.
The Herald-Tribune reported last fall on difficulty tracing a major donor to the Citizens for Taxation PAC.  The donor in question, Phoenix Media, gave $45,000 to the PAC. Robinson refused to disclose who was behind Phoenix Media and the Zeigler PAC financed mailers, saying “donors don’t want to be identified.”  More...
----------------------------
Petition and Data backing up the story
There are significant concerns in the community regarding the ethics of Sarasota County Commissioner Christine Robinson’s dual employment by the Argus Foundation.  Click here for a summary of the issue and petition, Robinson’s Conflict of Interest, Step Down From Argus or the County Commission:
 ===
Background information for this article:
Herald Tribune storie on dark money in 2014 school board race, click on links:
Wyoming Phoenix Media LLC state filing, click on link:
250 LLCs at 1621 Central Ave, Cheyenne WY (Phoenix Media address) click on link:
250 LLCs at 1620 Central Ave, Cheyenne WY (next door to Phoenix Media LLC address)  click for PDF