Lazaro Aleman
ECB Publishing, Inc.
As part of its continuing efforts to prepare for reclaiming the schools on July 1, the Jefferson County School Board recently began a review of its newly updated policy manual, a necessary step in the retake process.
For this update, the school board last summer hired Neola Inc., as the manual hadn’t been revised in about a decade and was consequently noncompliant with many state and federal laws.
At the workshop on Tuesday evening, March 8, Neola consultant Tom Young assured the board that the current revisions not only brought the district’s policies into compliance with state and federal laws, but they were also illustrative of best practices.
He also reminded the board that as part of the contract, Neola would twice a year review and update the policy book going forth. Young characterized the updates as invaluable, considering the many changes that the Florida Legislature made every year regarding education.
“Last year we had to modify 42 policies because of changes in the law,” Young said, noting that lawmakers appear increasingly determined to meddle in school district affairs.
“If you don’t do the updates, it doesn’t take long for your policy book to be out of compliance,” Young said.
Prior to Young’s presentation, Andrea Messina, executive director of the Florida School Board Association (FSBA), addressed the local board. What Neola would be presenting, Messina said, was essentially a template. It would be up to the board, she said, if it wanted to adopt the template as presented or individualize it to make it specific to the district.
The important thing, Messina said, was that whatever the policies adopted, that they said and covered what the board wanted said and covered. Equally important, she said, was that the board abided by the policies, if it didn’t want to get in trouble.
Young in his subsequent presentation limited the discussion to the bylaws section of the 144-page document, touching on selected policies that Neola recommended be changed for clarity, or where more than one option existed.
Unlike the policies, which were superintendent initiated, the bylaws, he said, were the board’s to control, as they allowed for the smooth conduct of board business.
Young identified at least six bylaws that he said Neola and the superintendent believed warranted changing for the sake of clarity, or because more than one option existed. He began with bylaw #0124, which dealt with Standards Of Ethical Conduct. Of the two possible options, Young said it was Neola’s recommendation that the board adopted option 1.
Option 1, he said, consisted of a lengthy listing of ethical standards of behavior that were generally accepted by districts across the state. Option 2, he said, left it up to the local board to draw its own standards.
The caveat, Young said, was that if the district chose to develop its own unique standards of ethical conduct, they would be district-specific and not subject to Neola’s warranty. That warranty, among other things, ensures that Neola will defend the district in court if its policies are challenged.
Young followed with a discussion of other specific bylaws, including #0123 (Standards For Boardmanship), #0149.1 (Public Expression Of Members), #0154 (Motions), #0155 (Committees), #0161 (Parliamentarian Authority), and #0165.3 (Special And Emergency Meetings).
In each instance he identified Neola’s recommended preference, especially where options existed.
When it came to policies #0167.1 (Use Of District-Issued Electronic Mail and Other Social Media) and #0169.1 (Public Participation At Board Meetings), Young offered some cautionary notes.
On the first, he reminded the board members that all their communications were public information. He warned them not to put anything in emails that they didn’t want to become public knowledge.
Concerning public participation, he spoke of the general loss of civility nowadays and the resulting contentious board meetings, with members of the public oftentimes abusing the process and even threatening board members with violence.
He advised that the board establish clearly defined procedures for the public’s participation, including setting a limited time period for addressing the board, and enforcing the rules strictly and fairly. Otherwise, he said, the board could face confrontational situations such as were occurring currently in some of the larger districts around the state.
Young told the board members that no decisions were expected of them on the policies at present, as this was a review process. But he wanted the board members to think about the recommendations and be prepared to vote on them at a later day.
He reminded the board that the contract afforded the district 60 hours of face-time with Neola personnel in the review and finalization of the policies. Typically, he said, 60 hours was more than sufficient to accomplish the task. If the process exceeded 60 hours, however, the district would have to pay an hourly rate per session, which could get expensive, he said.
At the current rate of progress, however, he expected that the review process would be completed within the 60-hour period, he said.
Per the 36-page agreement that the school board approved on Aug. 9, the district will pay Neola $28,135 in eight installments of about $3,517 each during a two-year period for the updating service.
As part of its contractual obligation, Neola’s production staff will also provide 100 hours of time to process the modified versions of the district’s bylaws and policies and administrative procedures and put them into a digital format.
You must be logged in to post a comment.