School Board - Special Meeting

Thank you. Thank you.

Check, check. Check, check.

And test, test. Check one. Test. Test. And check.

Check.

Check. Check. And test.

And test.

Check. Check, check. And check. Last mic check, check.

Thank you.

I just need you to, you know, keep it short.

Thank you. Thank you. you

I have their information, so I'll send it to them. I have his, hers, and his. She sent me this. I'll text it to them. I'm going to hit the button.

Thank you. Hello, hello, hello, hello. Testing one, two, three.

testing testing test test test test test test test

Good afternoon and welcome to the July 21st, 2026 Special Board Meeting of the Miami-Dade County School Board. Please stand as Board Member Alonso leads us in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please pause for a moment of silent meditation. You may be seated. Before we proceed with today's agenda I would like to acknowledge that school board member Luisa Santos will be participating in this meeting virtually through communications media technology. At the special school board meeting which was held on June 24th, 2026, The board approved member Santos' request to participate and vote virtually pursuant to board policy 0165K, participation and voting by board members at public board meetings through communications media technology in extraordinary circumstances. A physical quorum of the board is present in this meeting room and member Santos has joined us remotely. In accordance with board policy 0165, member Santos is authorized to fully participate in the meeting and will announce each of her votes verbally for the record. So not only do we welcome Board Member Santos, but we wanna take a moment to congratulate her on the amazing bundle of joy that she now has with her. She is officially a mom, and we are so, so very proud. So congratulations, we can't clap, but we can do it this way. Congratulations and God bless you and your beautiful baby and your entire family.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, members.

Absolutely. At this time, if there is anyone from the audience who would like to address agenda item SB1 but has not signed up, please go to the lobby counter outside the auditorium where staff will be ready and happy to assist you. The board must approve additional speakers to agenda items by a majority vote. Do I hear a motion for approval of the supplemental list of speakers? Second, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. Seeing none, motion passes. The list of additional speakers will be distributed once completed. The purpose of today's very special meeting is to continue the board search process for the next superintendent of schools by reviewing and refining interview protocols, establishing the process and participants for interviewing the top candidates and reviewing the final community outreach report with the board's facilitator. These discussions are intended to ensure a transparent, inclusive, and well-structured selection process that reflects the priorities and the feedback of the community. Before we move agenda item SP1 to the floor, I would like to remind the public speakers that pursuant to Board Policy 0169.1, individuals are allowed two minutes to address an agenda item. The green light signals for... Two minutes. The yellow light signals 30 seconds. And the red light means that the speaker has exhausted their time. The two minute time limitation will be observed. I need a motion to move agenda item SP1 to the floor. Do I have a second? All in favor say aye. Any opposed nay. Seeing none, motion passes. SP one is now before the board, and the subject is matters related to the comprehensive integrity-based election appointment, the process for the next superintendent of schools, superintendent search framework, and community engagement report two, semifinalist elections, and next steps to identify the finalists. The action proposed. is that the school board of Miami-Dade County, Florida receive and or take appropriate action regarding the following topics. Number one, consider the information from the community engagement update to be presented by the board's facilitator. Number two, review, evaluate, and finalize the board selection of the semifinalists after reviewing the results of each candidate's background check and other vetting procedures and confirming that each candidate meets the minimum qualification requirements approved by the school board. Number three, determine as to how the board wishes to proceed with the approved list of semi-finalists and the next steps to identify the finalists. Number four, Identify the board selection of finalists. Number five, determine the procedures governing the finalist interview process, including the format, organization of the public interviews. And number six, authorize the school board chair to call a special board meeting. at an appropriate date and time not prior to the August 13th, 2026 timeline pursuant to and consistent with prior board action for the purpose of conducting the final interview of the finalists and name the next superintendent of schools as approved by the board in the superintendent search framework at its meeting of May 13th, 2026. And number seven. Authorize the General Counsel, once a special board meeting is set to be scheduled, to notify finalists of the public interviews and the time they are set to participate in the process. I will now call public speakers to agenda item SP1. And we will begin with Theopolis Williams. Mr. Williams? Okay, not here. Second speaker, Maria Kramer.

Madam Chair, members of the board, Mr. Superintendent, thank you for allowing me to speak today. We are at a crucial point. You have elections for the bonds coming up in November. And the community has seen some things from this board lately that they're not too happy about with the Hope Scholarships and a few other things. So if you guys want this to pass, you're gonna have to work it. And one of the most important ways to work it is to select your superintendent early enough that he can go out with our current superintendent and communicate and share the benefits of this process. I have been involved in the schools for almost 30 years. I was the first chairman and the founder of the Miami Lakes Education Board, and I served on various committees, including chairing DIAC and vice chairing ABC for Mrs. Hammond for many years. So I pretty much have gotten to know every superintendent since Leonard Britton. And when I sit back and I analyze what it takes to make a superintendent that is successful and one that is not, it is the ability to communicate with the voters and the ability to build partnerships. Because when the board is having a difficult moment, when it needs support, that's who they need to turn to. I have gotten to know, purely from going to events, one of your candidates. And there is no doubt in my mind that the candidate that can do that is Rafael Villalobos. I don't know him well, but I have seen him in action in partnerships with Miami Dade College, Kendall Campus. I have seen how he talks to people, how he reaches out, and we need that, and we need that out there with the superintendent when we're selling this program. You have six people on your list.

Thank you so very much. You're out of time, though. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next speaker, Mr. Williams, I understand, has arrived. Good afternoon, sir.

Good afternoon. First of all, I want to say, when y'all selecting a superintendent, and out of all the years, we only had two superintendent, African American, As a community, as we pay our tax, we pay tax to y'all. We should have some respect to line them up and come into the community and let us hear their voice or what they bring into the system. Oftentimes, y'all pick and choose who y'all want. It might not be the right person. It's the public that being left out. After y'all do y'all's selection, then you bring it to us the last minute. We don't know what they bringing to the table, a high school. We got 11 schools that made A and B. Now they're demolished. I mean, there's something just wrong with the system as we as taxpayers. Y'all should give us that respect. It's house in house picking. There should be a national search where we can see everybody. Not with in-house. The in-house is going to carry out the same one that the one leaving out to carry it over. That's the problem we have with this school system. And that's the problem y'all need to look at. Y'all pick and choose who y'all want. It's the buddy game. It's my friend next in line. But I'm just saying to y'all, I have not seen an African American since Rudy Cruz left and Johnny Jones. I think it's a slap in the face to the community. Thank you.

Thank you. Antonio White.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. I am Antonio White, president of the United Teachers of Day. As Dade County Public Schools selects its next superintendent, we must be clear about what this moment demands. This is not a district where someone learns on the job. This is a system that requires leadership ready from day one. Leadership that is fully committed to traditional public schools. We're entering a period of significant transition with not only a new superintendent, but also a new CFO, and as I just recalled, a new chief innovation officer. That makes it even more critical that this process is handled with care, stability, and intention. Miami-Dade County is living in a mosaic of cultures, languages, and lived experiences. Our students come from families working multiple jobs, navigating real economic pressures, and striving to build better futures. Leading this district requires understanding those realities in practice, not just theory. Miami-Dade is not just a school district. It is one of the largest workforces in our county. Teachers, support staff, bus drivers, and administrators are the backbone to our students' success. Their trust in leadership is essential. Right now, that trust matters more than ever. Under Senate Bill 1296, collective bargaining has become more complex, more visible, and more consequential. This is not a time for disruption. It is a time for steady, experienced leadership. This is why a thoughtful transition between superintendents is critical. Allowing the current administration to complete the collective bargaining process, along with the renewal of the referendum, protects stability for our employees, our students, and our families. Cutting that process short risks unnecessary conflicts, delays, and a breakdown in trust that can take years to rebuild. This decision is not just about who leads next. It's about how we protect the people and the relationship that makes this district works. And the choice you make and how you manage that transition will shape the future for our students and employees for years to come.

Our next speaker is Phyllis Compton. Phyllis Compton. Miles Davis.

Good afternoon, Chair Rojas, members of the board. My name's Miles Davis. I'm speaking on behalf of PRISM. We're a youth-led organization that serves students across Miami-Dade and Broward. First, before the final selection is made, we have identified three areas and three direct requests. First, before this decision is made, we are asking that we hold at least one structured district-wide forum where students, families, educators, and community partners can ask the finalist questions and hear their responses directly. And we're not referring to a special board meeting where the public can offer brief comments or submit feedback online through a portal. We are asking for a true community forum centered on direct engagement with the finalist. We appreciate board member Louisa Santos and other board members who independently hosted town halls. We know that these efforts were valuable, but individual meetings are not a substitute for coordinated district-wide forum. In one of the nation's largest and most diverse school districts, a limited number of selected CBOs cannot fully represent every community. We also ask that each finalist state whether they will restart quarterly superintendent round tables with students and community partners. PRISM previously participated in these meetings with a whole host of other organizations and they provided a valuable line of communication with district leadership and they stopped abruptly. We want the next superintendent to restore them and make regular community engagement a standard part of how the district operates. And last, we ask that you select a superintendent who will engage affected communities early and transparently before advancing many major decisions we know are coming through the pipeline like school consolidations and closures. We know public engagement should happen while options are still being considered, not after a recommendation has effectively been finalized or district staff has started to already work with a co-facilitator or a charter school. So the board, we hope, will identify finalists in this manner and we thank you all for your time and consideration. Thank you.

Phyllis Compton. Okay, these are all the speakers that I have signed up. So at this time, I will be presenting agenda item SP1. As we continue the process of selecting our next superintendent of schools, it is important to recognize that the board approved superintendent search framework has been followed as designed. This comprehensive framework consists of eight distinct stages. each intentionally developed to ensure a thorough, transparent, deliberate, and thoughtful process for identifying the best leader for our school district. To date, we have successfully completed the first five stages of the framework and have now entered stage six, representing a significant milestone in the search process. The work completed thus far, including community engagement, stakeholder input, board approval of the job description and leadership qualities, candidate recruitment application review, and preliminary evaluations has established a strong foundation for the remaining phases of this important undertaking. I want my colleagues on the board to understand that agenda item SP1 was developed in accordance with the superintendent search framework that was reviewed and approved by the board on May 13th, 2026. The development of SP1 followed the established framework to ensure consistency with the board's approved process objectives and guiding principles. This approach reflects our collective commitment to conducting the superintendent search in a structured and thoughtful manner while adhering to the direction previously established by the board. I want to commend my fellow board members for their dedication and support to maintaining the integrity of this process. Throughout this search, the board has remained focused on following the framework which was adopted while conducting what I believe has been one of the most transparent superintendent selection processes this district has ever undertaken. Thank you to all of my colleagues. We have prioritized openness, public engagement, and accountability at every single step, ensuring that our stakeholders have had meaningful opportunities to provide input and remained informed throughout the process. As with any decision of this magnitude, we do recognize that there will be differencing opinions regarding both the process and the eventual outcome. It is simply quite challenging to make a decision that satisfies everyone. However, we respect the fact that members of our community will hold a variety of perspectives. That diversity of opinion is both expected and healthy in a community that cares deeply about the future of its schools. However, regardless of where individuals may ultimately stand, I am extremely proud of the diligence, professionalism, and collaboration demonstrated by my colleagues throughout this entire process thus far. I must say that I have also continued to hear positive feedback from many of our stakeholders who appreciate the board's commitment to conducting a fair, transparent, and well-structured search. I have also heard comments and concerns that are based on assumptions about situations that have not occurred. While some of these perspectives are speculative, I believe they are still valuable because they encourage us to consider a broader range of possibilities and potential outcomes. In my opinion, every comment and viewpoint contributes to a more thorough evaluation of the situation and helps ensure that we make the most informed and well-considered decision possible. During today's special board meeting, the board will be asked to make several important decisions that will guide our transition into stages seven and eight. These will be narrowing today the candidate pool, reviewing the background screening results and applicable conducting final interviews and evaluations, completing due diligence, and ultimately selecting and naming Miami-Dade County Public Schools next superintendent of schools. By remaining disciplined in our adherence to the established process, we are reaffirming our commitment to selecting the most qualified leader. As we begin today's discussion, I would like to ask my fellow board members for your continued cooperation in helping conduct an efficient, productive, and focused meeting. We have several important decisions before us and I encourage everyone to continue to remain centered on the specific actions that require the board's consideration. While thoughtful discussion is both appropriate and necessary, I also ask that we be mindful of our time by avoiding revisiting issues or deliberations that have already been thoroughly discussed and decided during previous stages of this process. By keeping comments focused on the matters currently before us, we can ensure that today's meeting is both productive and respectful of everyone's time. Number one, in summary, the actions before the board today are straightforward and represent the next important steps in the superintendent search First, the community engagement report two from the board's facilitator, which will provide a summary of the stakeholder input and feedback gathered throughout the community engagement process will be heard. This report will help inform our deliberations as we move forward. Second, following the presentation, the board will formally consider and take action to establish the list of semifinalists. While the Board previously received a memorandum from the General Counsel identifying six candidates who received votes during the initial selection process, no formal action has yet been taken to officially designate those individuals as semifinalists. Accordingly, the board will now have the opportunity to finalize the discussion and bring closure to that phase of the search. The board may also consider just moving to naming the finalists and move to the action number three, The third, once the semi-finalists have been officially confirmed, the board will then proceed to determine which candidates will advance as finalists. However, if agreement is reached with a previous action, we will then move to number four. The fourth is the board discussion and decide the process for conducting finalist interviews. including reestablishing that the interviews will be held in a public setting during a special board meeting and determining the format and procedures that will govern that process. And fifth, the board will decide assisting the chair to schedule a special board meeting date for the purpose of conducting the finalist interviews and name the next superintendent of schools. Again, we will conduct a thorough discussion of each available option before taking any formal action. Once all discussions have been completed and the board member has had the opportunity to fully consider the information and recommendations presented, we will then proceed to address each action and every item individually which may include further discussions. For certain matters, I may request that the boards vote or reach consensus on a specific recommendation as it is presented in order to provide clear direction before moving forward. After all individual recommendations have been made by all board members and they have had the opportunity to speak, then at that time any motions that would be addressed will be taken at that time. So our first presentation, he is standing here before us, will be our facilitator, Mr. Adam Lechner of Hazard Young Atea and Associates. On Friday, July 17, 2026, our general counsel, Mr. Harvey, sent a memorandum to the board. That was update number 30, which included the community feedback report and additional materials for the upcoming special meeting. So at this time I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Lechner and ask my colleagues to respectfully please wait until the full presentation has been completed by Mr. Lechner before we ask any questions. So sir, you are recognized.

Board chair, board members, good afternoon. Thank you for having me again. As the board chair mentioned, this is a milestone moment for you all. We have concluded phase five. We are in phase six. We are on track. I'm excited today to start the presentation with all the hard work around community engagement that this board has done in all of your communities. In addition to the website, I will go through each of the core findings that we've observed. And towards the end, we'll combine that with part one. You'll recall that part one was sort of the first phase of community engagement that included your first special meeting, ABAC, and another focus group. So what we'll do is take a landscape overview of what the community is generally saying. That's part one of today's presentation. We will then shift to the decision points that the board will make. So similar to last time, as the board chair mentioned, we'll go through all of those decision points just so that everyone has the same context. things to consider as we move through this round in the next round but I will pause for when we do that and ensure that once we get to those decision points with that why don't we go ahead and start part two will start I'm gonna synthesize some input where we're at in your phase although it has been mentioned before and then kind of confirm the path to the finalist selection not earlier than August 13th So here's where we're at, just as the board chair had mentioned. We completed phase five. Screening has generally been completed. I'll make a note on that in just a second. We had some initial interviews, and then that brings us to the conclusion of part two, that is today, of the community engagement report. and all the decisions that are outlined in your agenda item for today. Next phases, of course, are the finalist round. You all determined last time that that would be a public interview. That would be the next phase of this process. And then you have your remaining transition and onboarding. So as you see, the steps have been completed. You all have put in the hard work. We're exactly on track where the board has approved its framework and search process. All right, without further ado, let's go into part two of the community engagement report. And as I mentioned, there was two phases to the community engagement report. This report is after the application window closed. And I say that because you will see in some of my presentation materials and probably in the report itself, that that influenced sort of some of the commentary that you all engaged in and that we got through the website. So I just wanted to name, it was after the application window closed all the way up until July 13th. So there's really two critical work streams that I have listed up here on the screen. The community engagement reports, surveys, town halls that you all have submitted to the general council, which was forwarded to HYA. And then we also have alongside that the superintendent search website, which has been live since April and concluded on July 13th. So we'll talk about both of those throughout the presentation. Again, like last time, you will find in the community engagement report and through some of the commentary that I'll lift up here in the presentation that your constituents still are informed by the context of Miami-Dade County Public Schools and really the context of public education today. One, you are a District A rating that continues to resonate with people who have participated. that the next superintendent of schools must be able to maintain that A rating. That has become kind of a recurring theme both across both parts. Graduation rate, again, kind of maintaining the high standards is gonna be really important for your next superintendent of schools. The annual budget, very large budget. You will see as one of the predominant themes that we'll go through is the person who sits in that seat of your next superintendent of schools, according to what your constituents have shared, must be a person who can navigate these financial waters with you. Someone with real operation leadership, financial leadership is really important. And then enrollment. This context is important both because of its scale. A lot of the people that you've engaged were thinking of a superintendent who has that experience managing and leading large, complex organizations. And the other thing that really was part of part two, I would say, is the state of enrollment and its impact on the decisions that the district and the board is making. And that kind of continued to shape the commentary. You'll see that as kind of a recurring thread throughout the commentary. Okay, wanna just highlight here the various and many stakeholder groups that you all had engaged. Labor unions, employee organizations, parent PTA, student government leaders, other student organizations that were represented even here today. um district staff business and industry partners that went across the survey on the website but also focus groups uh that many have have you have done uh chair rojas for example i know was uh coordinated a focus group for for that particular group as well but of course cbo's local residents alumni advocacy organizations elected officials participated in uh some of your town halls and in focus groups as well so So many different organizations represented in your stakeholder engagement since this process started back in April when that website went live through the part one community engagement report with this special meeting, ABAC and others, and all the way up until July 13th. Lots of community engagement going on. Here are the key findings from part two of the community engagement report. This would be focused on board members community engagement and that website. Number one, commitment to public education and independence from charter and private interests. We'll talk more about that in a second. Educational leadership and instructional leadership still continues to be one of the most important things that your constituents are saying that they want out of the next superintendent of public schools or Miami-Dade County public schools. Transparency, community voice, confidence in the selection process, we'll go over that. Financial and operational stewardship, like I mentioned, very important for many of your constituents. Community trust, visibility, and responsiveness, that's really related to your next superintendent of schools and their relationship with the community and how they're leading the district. It's really being visible for the community. And then the last one, equity, inclusion, and accessibility for all learners. We'll go over that as the last key finding. So let's start with commitment to public education independence. As you'll see here on the screen, I have a quote and then I have an example cited from the three different sources that were really lifted up this key theme. So we need someone to be a champion of our public schools over charters. Even in one of the focus groups that the board chair had organized expressed a preference for an educator over a political figure. So this time, unlike last time, a more direct sort of commentary on independence from private sector and also naming charters a little bit more in part two was really important for your constituents. Next one, educational experience and instructional leadership. Very important. This probably is one of the most dominant themes and aligns very closely to the board's approved attributes, of course. We'll go over that later. But someone who has classroom experience, someone who was a district administrator, someone who actually has kind of management leadership experience to be able to manage that large scale complex organization that your constituents were so concerned about. I have a quote up here, the district needs a seasoned educator with classroom experience as well as a school site administrative experience. And just to kind of add even more texture, one of the surveys, this is Vice Chair Colucci, there was someone who responded to the ability to understand students, where they serve students in developing and learning their opportunities from all across the district. Extremely important for your next superintendent of schools to really understand how to connect with students, someone who has actually demonstrated experience kind of improving outcomes, supporting schools and students across your district. Second, or third key finding, transparency, community voice, and confidence. This is, as some of the public commenters had mentioned, was really related to the process. A lot of this was, as I mentioned, post-application window closing. So names were already out there, and folks were really interested in getting to know the candidates, the six candidates that you all had identified. But again, encouraging also the board to maintain transparency as you've done throughout this entire process. That continues to remain very important for the constituents that you've engaged through your focus groups, but also represented in the website. And just to add another, I'll paraphrase, there was a community engagement survey. This was Board Member Espino, one of the surveys that came through there. Respondents want a selection process that is open and community driven, focused on student outcomes. So very much as the Board Chair opened this meeting today and as you all have committed throughout this process, echoing in your constituents and folks that you've engaged. Let's go to financial and operational stewardship. New leader must find innovative ways to increase the district's financial stability so that we can overcome our current budget crisis. He or she must have the foresight to try to forecast prevent future financial crises. I want to call out here, I think this was Board Member Santos' poll, is that first one among the most selected leadership attributes for folks that she engaged through, Board Member Santos engaged through her town hall. And as I mentioned at the onset of today, that was in part one, resonated very clearly for your constituents. It was even more prominent, I would say, in part two. And that makes sense. You all have engaged your constituents at a more granular level, got more feedback, asked more targeted questions. But again, for the next superintendent of schools, somebody who has that depth of experience managing a large scale organization like Miami-Dade County Public Schools. big one community trust visibility and responsiveness for the qualities in the next superintendent of schools have a quote here they should answer this is this is very focused they should answer every email sent to their office I believe this was engaging students, so very important for the next superintendent of schools to be visible to really the reason why we're all here, right? Students and the educators that serve them. Very important for the next superintendent of schools to get beyond email, to get beyond social media, and actually be in the communities. Very, very important as a prominent theme, honestly, across all of your engagements that you all have done. Want to move next to equity, inclusion, and accessibility as one of the last ones. This one was mentioned in the first one, but definitely raised to kind of a level of a more prominent or more specifics, I would say. So for example, I have here up on the quote, certified interpreters for all meetings. ensuring that your meetings are accessible for people of all backgrounds. For one of the surveys that, this one, actually Board Member Alonso administered, equity and access to resources was selected by nearly half of folks who responded to that engagement. Really important to kind of keep students centered and focused and thinking about how we support students of all backgrounds was important for part two for the constituents that you all have engaged. additionally just like in part one and in alignment with the board's commitment to ensure that all voices are represented throughout this process i included in the full report which will be posted on on the website just like the last one but i have here a summary of other things that were mentioned i know that you all feel um extremely um committed to making sure that everyone's voice no matter where what it's about is represented in this process and so i wanted to lift that up here in this space with you all today technology ai digital learning this actually split between kind of two different camps of this this subject one was the district needs more investment that's what um in particular around ai and how to work with ai that was a commentary that came up in some of the surveys The other one, I also believe this was board member Alonzo's engagement, there was more investment but also more sort of career training in the fields as well as very important for the district to kind of align curriculum to these pathways. So extremely important but extremely represented across all of your engagements. internal versus external advocacy again all of this is from after the application window closed and the names were out I know there was one survey I think it was board member Blanco's where there was a question around internal or external and and what would be your preference very common question and surveys like this and it was There was a very large survey, I think about 180 respondents close to that. And internal candidates was basically the second of the options that you could select, the second highest. But the number one was yes, equally. So external versus internal folks were sort of indifferent, it sounded like. So you kind of have a mix there. The first report didn't really name a preference, internal, external. This one, it seemed a little bit more resonated, but it could be because there was a targeted question around it. But I think it actually gave some really interesting insight from your constituents. Workforce career readiness, enrollment decline. I mentioned this before around the leadership of this district. We'll really have to navigate that decline and so some folks had some thoughts on how to manage that. I think part of it was lifted up in the commentary today around stakeholder engagement around that process in a state of declining enrollment that was mentioned several times in the engagement. Religious neutrality, that goes back to that private school, but this named in particular separation from church and state, but in particular around Bible study in classrooms. A few people specifically mentioned keeping that out of our classrooms. then there was some public comment procedures around this process but there was one and I could not verify you know what exactly that was but I felt here we wanted to make sure that that person's voice is represented part two just as we did in part one I wanted to explore How does the community's feedback relate to the board's approved attributes earlier this year? You could see it's a very clear alignment. I have some examples up there, but student-centered and vision, right? Strategic vision and leadership. The financial expertise is up there. The visibility and transparency and community engagement is kind of cut throughout many different attributes. Some were more prominent than others in part two, but definitely very clear alignment to the board approved attributes.

Okay, so what's the full picture look like?

I just went through just part two. Tell me what part one and part two looks like because this will be the thing that the board will look at in determining who the next superintendent of schools would be, what your constituents are saying. So commitment to public education and independence. The next superintendent of schools, according to your constituents, needs to be somebody who is unequivocally dedicated to this district, will be advocating at all levels of government on behalf of students of Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Educational leadership, again, it's that classroom experience, very important for your constituents. Financial and operational stewardship, we talked about this. Community trust, visibility, and responsiveness. That's responsiveness of the superintendent, of the district as a whole. Transparency and confidence in the selection process. So what we're doing today, reporting out all the engagement that you all have done. Strategic and visionary leadership that kind of goes to this sort of state of navigating the waters right now, the declining enrollment, the operational challenges, the financial challenges. how to maintain that A rating when we have those pressures on the system. Very important for the next superintendent of schools, according to your constituents. That last one, equity, inclusion, and accessibility for all students, but also community members who come to your meetings and want your meetings to be accessible, to be able to engage you all. But again, very similar to last time, attributes strongly relate. The themes are very similar. I think part two added a little bit more texture because you all got down to a more granular level, but sustained is what I would say over the last three months over the course of this engagement. And again, so what do the additional perspectives look like across part one and part two? This is essentially a summary of both, but workforce post-secondary writing is very important. It's that technology investment in and training of local knowledge and community familiarity Miami-Dade County's cultural and linguistic diversity so it's this knowledge of the community this love for the community very important state advocacy that speaks to the visibility that kind of unequivocal promotion of and standing for Miami-Dade County Public Schools at all level that resonated and If you recall last time, too, at your April special meeting, there was comments on facilities and sustainability and environmental health. Taxpayers' perspective, so from the mindset of people who are paying property taxes and trying to keep a district that is financially solvent and running efficiently. internal versus external we just talked about that enrollment decline religious neutrality in the public comment procedure it was just that one that was named okay I will pause their board to see if you have any questions or comments related to part two in the summary of part one and two before we get into the decision points for the next phase

Thank you very much for that very comprehensive document that you have submitted to us, and I'm opening it up now for any comments or questions that my colleagues may have at this time. So we'll start with Board Member Gill or Sir, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that very thorough presentation. I'm sure it's appreciated by everyone. We have a lot of stuff that we need to get to today, sir. And I hope that your presentation will go a little more quickly as we get there. And I particularly in noting it, I note that there are a number of appendices attached. I'm able to read those. So I would urge you particularly to be sure that you don't take our time to go through those appendices one at a time and tell us everything that you've already presented to us in written form. Going through our decision points is what we need to be talking about, although the context and texture that you've provided is certainly helpful so i appreciate that but we need to move this process today i know that at least for myself i'm under some time constriction today and would like to see that we have enough time to get to our board discussion so thank you very much madam

Thank you, Board Member Geller, and I know that you were gonna respond, but I will have to say, for the record, we will have to stay as long as we need to stay. This is a very important decision that we are making today. It's probably the most consequential and I respectfully respect everything that our board member mentioned, but it's imperative that any questions that any of my colleagues have, any areas of concern, any areas that need further clarity, that they be addressed today as we move forward in this particular process. So you wanted to say something, sir, or not? Before I proceed?

I'm ready to dive into the next phase on that note.

Thank you. Let me, it's open to my colleagues on the board, anyone else that may have something else they wanna say. Is there any other colleague that wants to say something at this time? Okay, great. I will very briefly state I believe that there was information that I sent to you in reference to the meetings that I conducted, and the date was incorrect. They were held on June 29th, 2026, and I believe you put down June 9th. as it had been reported.

June?

9th, and it should be June 29th.

Okay. Board Chair, I will make that correction. Thank you for that.

Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. And the only other area based on what I have read that my colleagues have submitted and you have shared with us is that this board has tried to be as inclusive as we possibly can with all members of the community. for their participation and their input, which is extremely important to us, and particularly our students, that I had the opportunity to meet with them. had very insightful messages for what they considered to be important with the next superintendent of schools. And one area that really surprised me, and this is all I'm gonna say on this part, they want to see person-to-person interactions more so than anything that is done virtually. And that was interesting to observe. So with that said, that's all that I have on this portion. So at this time, Mr. Lechner, anything else you wanna say before we move?

I'm ready to move.

Okay, so on July 7th, 2026, the General Counsel submitted to the board a list of semi-finalist candidates that were based on recommendations that were provided by board members. Again, this was during the previous phase of the selection process, and as a result of that process, there were six candidates that have advanced to the semi-finalist status. So before we proceed with any discussion, I would like to confirm for the record that the background investigations were conducted, and I know that we had professional vetting that was done, and that we have the head of HR here with us. And if she could just for a moment very briefly apprise us of what took place in the last meeting. I also ask if our law enforcement department was also part of the vetting. I understand that they will be part of it after fingerprinting takes place for the next three finalists, and not on this level, but for the sake of the listening public that would like to make sure that all of this is very transparent. If you could address that, I would appreciate it.

Through the chair, the team in HR, who has a longstanding history with vetting applicants, conducted a secondary background screening that looked at social media profiles, references, credential screening to verify the master's degree requirements, And to answer the specific question regarding criminal background check, we historically conduct the criminal piece when the applicants are here in person so we can run fingerprints in order to have that as part of our system. And so that piece will come with the final selections come in for interviews.

Thank you very much. I'm looking forward to all of the upcoming reports as we reach that stage of the three or two or one, whatever the number is that we finally determined today we would like to see. So as we proceed with the process, I would like to, have our board and you give us inputs as well, consider the following points. First of all, we need to determine the number of candidates that are gonna be finalists. And so, someone could make a motion if they would like three finalists or two finalists or five finalists. I personally like three, but that's my, I'll be the last one. So I see several people who's end up, first I saw Vice Chair Colucci, and then over to this side. Through the chair. I have two others.

I also have Ms. Santos who has her hand raised to speak. Everyone will have an opportunity.

Vice Chair Carlucci. Thank you.

You first.

Through the Chair, I would like to make a motion that in order to advance, you need a majority of five votes.

Is there a second? All right, thank you, all discussion? Any discussion at this time from any colleagues?

I see Dr. Bendros-Menegos, ma'am? My hand is not up, I'll go with that. Okay, thank you very much.

Yes, my hand is not up. Okay, then we have a second, and now we're in discussion, so go ahead, sir.

Just very briefly, anyone that doesn't get The votes of five members really, in my opinion, should not be considered as a finalist. I don't want to see us have like a slate of them. We should vote individually on each of them. Also, Madam Chair, do we need to first confirm? Is there any necessity for a motion to confirm the six names we've been vetting as our semifinalists?

I did address that issue, but it's up to the board, and that's exactly what Mr. Lechner is gonna let you know as well. I did bring that up because we had not taken a formal vote initially, but if we decide to go in another direction, it's up to the majority of the board to decide.

I'm merely saying I think this motion by the Vice Chair is absolutely appropriate. Let's vote individually when we get there. But we can adopt this motion. But before we do the voting, we should have a motion, and I'd certainly be ready to make it, that the semifinalists are the six names we've been vetting. And after that, we can move to the finalists, hopefully fairly expeditiously.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Lechner, sir, you wanted to say something?

Yes, I think one option for the board to consider through the chair would be formally moving the candidates that you all have been identifying in the previous phase to semi-finalists. Although I think that's not actually contemplated in the approved framework, it's sort of a gray area. So one consideration is formally approve the candidates that you all have been considering to semi-finalists to then take that pool and move to finalist round.

Okay. I know that I had another board member who wanted to speak. Thank you very much. Is there something else, sir, that you want to say before I call on my colleague? All right, board member Espino.

Thank you, Madam Chair. No, it was going to be something similar to both Vice Chair Colucci and Board Member Geller's position in that the idea of picking a number is arbitrary and essentially is, I mean, you took the words out of my mouth, Board Member Geller. Essentially, if you can't get five votes here, you won't get five votes in the next round. That's right. So if by some chance six candidates get five votes, then we're addressing six. If it's only two or three, that's a, so I concur with the motion. I look forward to voting on it.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? And I want to thank our board secretary. I did ask her to have a slate ready in case we wanted to go in this direction. And we do all have received it. Madam Chair, my hands up. Oh, I'm so sorry. Board Member Santos.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And it's so great to be here. Thank you all for letting me join virtually. As far as the number of or the way we select this next step, what I heard from the community report right now and from all the engagement that I've been able to do and that you all have been able to do and we've received through the general counsel's office, the community is asking for a highly visible, accessible process and And what I think we might get to is if we only move forward people who have five votes today, my approach to this has been I respect each of you tremendously. And some of you moved forward semifinalists that I didn't, clearly. And in order to give our community what they're asking for in that transparent, you know, way to show them the most and best options so that they too can be a part of it. Because the community, while they received names, has not seen or been able to have, you know, participate or watch a public conversation with any of these candidates. And so I really like the idea of moving forward with an affirmative selection process. I would like to see at least what I saw, there were candidates who were selected by more than one board member. If we only look at those, there's four of them. So we can take them, but what I would like to put on the record is I'd like to see us move forward with four finalists so I can get the chance to hear from the people that you all selected that I didn't, and so that the community gets the chance to do that as well.

Thank you, well, at this time, we do have a motion, we have a second, we're in discussion, so we do need to take a vote at this point in time of the motion that has been made by Vice Chair Colucci, so all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, aye. Any opposed? None, okay, motion then passes. All right, sir, Mr. Lechner, if you could take us to the next one. Madam Chair. Yes, sir.

Just so we do follow what Mr. Lechner also suggested, and just as a housekeeping matter, I'll move now formally that we name the six names that have been being vetted as our semifinalists, and at least that will be settled and we can move on.

Second. Okay, discussion? Board Member Santos?

I seconded the motion.

Okay, thank you very much. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Aye.

Who said aye?

No, I eyed a little late. I was in favor. It was not intended to be.

All right, because you're the one that made the motion to start off with.

Sorry, a little slow on the aye there.

Okey-dokey. Back to Mr. Lechner, sir.

Okay.

Go ahead. Go ahead, sir, go ahead, and then I'll follow after you.

Shall we move to the remaining parts of the decision points? So this was, you all were just discussing this kind of the point of a public interview, the board, you all decided last time that the final round would be a public interview in sort of a traditional format. And this has been named already, but Yes, it's for the board to probe, ask questions, make sure that the next superintendent of schools aligns to what your expectations are and what you're hearing from the community. But very importantly, that final round two is, it really is that first opportunity for your candidates no one's a finalist at that round, but candidates to present a vision as well in response to your questions, but really an opportunity to be in the public and share that vision. I have some tips on the interview round. There are more in the manual that I had shared. But one thing that we typically encourage boards to do is really ground our questions in three main foundational documents, your job description, the attributes, the community engagement, where your community stakeholders have been saying that they would prefer the next superintendent of school. Some typical things to look for in executive leadership, you're really looking for that composure. Does the candidate stay measured and confident? Depth and breadth of experience, directness, are they answering your questions? Fit of style to the vision, the vision that your community has said that they would want in their next superintendent school, your vision. and credibility. Do they back with evidence? Some of the big key things in our experience doing this for 40 years that boards really should be looking in and honing in when they interview in that final round. Now, this brings us to our next decision point, and this is with respect to the finalist round, okay? So the one that happens sometime after today. I have just listed here based off of what I thought I heard the board say, but you see at the bottom if there's any adjustments we need to make, we're going to take stock of that. Number one, in-person public interview format. I believe the board definitely decided that last time, but confirming no virtual participation for that round. Number two, individual board member questions. Each member has the opportunity to ask at least one question of each candidate. Focused follow-up questions. As you can imagine, you know, you may ask a question and you might need a little bit of clarity on that response. Perfectly fine and within the bounds. Just try to steer towards that same line of inquiry so that you can get the clarity that you need and the candidate has that opportunity to respond. That's really what that means is the focused follow-up so that we're not each asking several questions that are unrelated. Number four, consistent evaluation. This is a big one in sort of traditional public interviews is each board member asks the same question of each candidate that comes before you, okay? Candidate interaction. So I have talked to Dr. Baglos and in coordination with Mr. Walter. Should the board have more than one candidate, what we will do then is have those other candidates in a separate room sequestered so that they cannot hear the questions that you all are asking or the responses from the candidate. And then the last one, asking if this feels right to all of you in terms of the time allotment for each interview. You'll want to be consistent across all the interviews that you have. So I've named one that works well in our experience with large districts. 60 minutes 45 minutes for questions that basically amounts to one question, potentially a follow-up question per board member with 15 minutes remaining for a Q&A. That's really important. You'll want to create space for your candidate to ask questions of all of you. That's actually very illuminating a lot of times. You'll want to pay attention to the kinds of questions that they are asking and what they're focused on. But that would be the 60 minutes allotment. And you can see that really just amounts to one question per board member. So in terms of the structure of the finalist round, board chair, I would turn it back to you for discussion amongst the board. Does this feel right? Yes.

Thank you. And I do have a follow up to what you just said. I recall vividly during the last election process that we had, We allowed the candidates to have an opening statement, and they were all given the opportunity to do so. And then they were allowed to, if I recall correctly, and this has been a while, to give a closing, their closing remarks, in addition to the one question that is asked by each of us. So I heard you say we have to determine the time, which more or less you said one hour, 45 minutes to one hour. Then we have to determine if we are in agreement with one question per board member, and then if there's gonna be an opening statement and a closing. And the questions, do we have to determine also in this particular process if the questions will be the same for every single candidate as they were last time around, correct?

Yes, so let's assume you have two or three candidates. For each candidate that comes up, it's the same question that you would ask board chair for everyone. The other thing related to this, it's on the next slide, If we're not sharing those questions in advance through mr. Harvey potentially there's no idea right of what questions you're going to ask and so I believe that having worked with all of you I think that's the process that you all would agree to but That'll be up to you if you decide to do that then please prepare several questions in advance in case Another board member has a similar question

Okay, so we'll entertain motions at this time. If anybody has any motion that they'd like to make, I see that Board Member Espino has his hand up.

Madam Chair, no, just a point of order. I mean, we're talking about the finalists, but we haven't gotten through the semifinalists yet, so I wondered if we can go down the list of each of the candidates.

We can. We're following his lead right now, so we can do that, absolutely.

Okay, motion that we address the semifinalists first before proceeding on finalist selection process. Okay.

All right, all in favor?

Aye. Any opposed, nay? Yes, okay, so here we are, let's do that part.

Yeah, so I'm gonna back up a little bit. We just talked about this, grounding our decision-making in those three foundational documents. That's what this slide is at, job description, your board-approved attributes of community input that we just talked about. This was just mentioned, Dr. Beigels mentioned this as well, the fingerprinting will occur once the folks that you select, that will occur once they come in person. That would be the remaining thing that's done out of the vetting process. So I just wanted to be clear about that as you all contemplate who to move to the next round. and then here we are this brings us to the semi-finalist selection um the board has moved the six to semi-finalists formally now it's about deciding um of that list uh who you all want to move forward um i have some options that we have seen affirmative which is Someone motions to move a candidate, if that's second, there's a discussion, you vote. And you sort of move down that list, but it's coming from a place of a board member is motioning affirmatively to move someone. Flip side is, you could motion to eliminate if there's an idea that there's no consensus. I don't know that I would recommend that in this situation, but know that that's a possibility as well. I also don't think we need to do the Delphi technique either, which is, in complicated situations, it's sort of a head-to-head. But that would be the general approach, is sort of an affirmative selection vote down the list.

Thank you, and yes, those were some of the options that we had, but right now, let's get through the semi-finalist portion. And so, we're all dealing with that scenario right now.

So, if Dr. Nichols- Madam Chair, for discussion on the semi-finalist motion that's on the table. I just want to make it clear for the record that as we go through, since we adopted board member Colucci's motion to require a majority vote for any candidate to be affirmatively moved forward to a public final interview, I want to put on the record, I will be moving forward every candidate that received more than one board member's nomination for the sake of being able to have the public have insight into the four candidates that received more than one board member nomination, not necessarily my finalist, as is clear from the names I submitted.

Thank you, Board Member Santos, for your input. And so we're going to proceed at this point. Everybody has had the opportunity. Vice Chair Colucci, do you want to say something, ma'am?

No, I'm good, Madam Chair. I think we just have, we have the motion and the second to go through the names. That's what we're doing now.

And just a point of clarification. I'm just trying to simplify this. Let's just go down the list. Alphabetical order's fine. But like we've done, we can just say roll call or consensus if we don't hear five or we gotta do it by specific one. Then we move on to the next one. The protracted motions and seconds and discussion on each one I think is unnecessary. So my motion contemplated just going down the list of names and seeing if there's five and moving on to the next one.

Second that. All right, so we're going to go ahead and go through that process, which was one of the several options that we have available to us. And I fully concur, let's go ahead and start that way. So we'll go ahead and begin. You all have a list? We gotta vote on the motion. Yes, do I have a second? All in favor, aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. Seeing none, motion pass. So we will go ahead and begin with the candidates whose names have been identified. You all have a document in front of you. And so we'll begin with the first who would like to begin. Right, bueno, you're talking about the alphabetical order that we have here, which is what we requested, or what I had requested for them to submit. So we do have bueno is number one. And we have Lozano, we have Mitchell, Perez, Luskowski and Villalobos.

So Madam Chair, I think that we just need to, we're gonna have discussion now on bueno. Yes, it'll be the first one. Discussion or just vote?

We don't have to have discussion. That's up to whatever the majority of the board would like to do. I'm good with whatever the majority wants.

I'm good with voting on it and just voting without discussion.

And I think that that probably is the best way to go as well. All right, so we're voting on bueno. All right, we marked it here. Do we wanna show hands as well as, and again, the majority of the board will decide. We've already marked it on here, but do we also wanna have a show of hands? Yes, then let's go, all right, let's move. Bueno, all those in favor of bueno?

Aye. He's got four, so he doesn't move forward. Four.

And I would like for our board attorney to be the one to keep up with the numbers here.

Through the chair, if a roll call can be done, that would be easier for us to capture the votes so that there's a clear distinction of the vote because a quiet no on a dais by Robert's Rules is a yes.

All right, I have no problem with that, and we want full clarity and full transparency. So I will begin. We'll start on this side. Board Member Geller, sir? We're working on bueno right now.

Yes or no? Yes.

Yes or no to Mr. Bueno?

I'm a no.

No. Blanco? No. Espino? Rojas, yes. Colucci, no. Board Member Bendros-Mando-Goldman?

Before I vote, Madam Chair, I want my name properly listed. My name is Bendros Mendengol, not just Mendengol. Please.

Oh, yes. Go ahead and we'll make the correction for that. That would be good. Madam Secretary, please. Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you. Yes, for Bueno.

Board Member Alonso.

Yes.

Okay, that's everybody and Santos.

Yes, I was going to...

Okay, I know you wanna move this, but let's take a step back for a moment. I was gonna say, everybody on the day of sitting here, now we're gonna go to Board Member Santos, who is with us online. Can you repeat your vote, please?

Yes, aye. All right, thank you.

All right, next one, Lozano. We'll begin on this side first, Alonso.

No.

No, okay. Dr. Bendros-Meningo? No. Vice Chair Colucci? I'm a yes. Rojas is a yes. All right, Espino? Yes. Espino is a yes, all right. Blanco, yes. And Geller? Yes. All right.

Total.

So we have Santos? Yes. All right, so Lozano has yes, okay.

How many?

Yes, all right, we're gonna go to the next one.

What was the number, I'm sorry?

The number is our attorney maintaining accountability, six. Mitchell, we'll begin now on this side. Geller, sir, board member?

No.

All right.

No. Yes.

No. I'm a no. No.

No.

No. All right, what's the number, Mr. Board Attorney, sir, on that one? One. One, okay, thank you very much. We go now to Perez, and we will start with Board Member Alonso.

No.

Dr. Benderos-Mendigo, ma'am? No, Madam Chair. Okay, thank you. Vice Chair Calucci? I'm a no, Madam Chair. And Rojas is a no. Espino? No. Blanco?

Yes.

All right, Blanco's a yes. And Board Member Geller, sir?

No.

All righty. The number, sir? No. Santos? No. No. The number?

One, okay.

We are now going to proceed to Ruskowski, and we'll start with Board Member Geller.

No.

Aye. Blanco.

No.

Espino. Yes. Rojas, no. No. All right, Dr. Bendos-Meningo.

No, Madam Chair. Board Member Alonso.

Yes.

All right, and Board Member Santos. Yes. Yes, all right. What is the number on that? Three, okay. Villalobos, this time we're gonna go ahead and start with Alonso.

Yes.

All right, Board Member Bendels-Meningo. Yes. Vice Chair Calucci. Yes. Rojas. Yes. Board Member Espino. Yes. Board Member Blanco. Yes. Board Member Geller. Yes. Board Member Santos. Yes. Okay, that's everyone. Okay.

Madam Chair.

Yes, sir.

I have to speak on something just because I really feel that I need to get it off my chest. We have an incredible list here of candidates and After going through this list, I've always had one name of one individual that I thought would be on this list. But then, in looking back at all of our different videos and meetings that we've had, that person has been asked to run these meetings. And that is Dr. Lewis. And I personally reached out to Dr. Lewis and asked him why he did not put his name in And he shared that he had a responsibility as Deputy Superintendent to run these meetings and to coordinate, and he felt that it might have been inappropriate. But I really feel that if he would be interested, I would want to give him an opportunity to be one of the finalists in this process. And because he has already gone through intensive background and been a deputy superintendent, I think he has gone through some of the background that would be required for this nomination of a finalist. So I know it might feel inappropriate, but sometimes you gotta speak from the heart and let what one feels come out. And Dr. Lewis is somebody who I directly respect and would be another great candidate to hear from as we look, because this process is about communication, right? I just wanted to put that out there and leave it as discussion because as the public would know, we do run in sunshine. And I have no opportunity to speak to any fellow board member on this dais about this. And if I didn't speak this out today, I think I would carry this for many, many years to come. And I just wanted to make sure that I shared that with my fellow board members and would love to hear the opinion of others.

Thank you, Board Member Alonso. All right, Board Member Geller.

Let me first thank Board Member Alonso for speaking up. I appreciate that. Not necessarily easy, but when you say it's from the heart, I know and respect that, and I think that your comments are very well taken. I happen to share your opinion about Dr. Lewis. I will say this about what you've brought up. I don't mind sharing publicly that during the initial stages of our thinking about this, I approached Dr. Lewis and told him that I thought he would be a very strong candidate if he chose to apply, and someone that I've become very impressed with his service and i'll say not just because of the way he does his job which is a difficult one but because i've had some extensive discussions with him about the compassion that he shows for some of our students who find the wrong path This is a hard job that we're picking someone to fill. It is just not easy. That's just the fact. And what my reaction would have been had Dr. Lewis applied is one thing, but I don't want a superintendent who's not sure they want the job. And I think that's just, it's a bad way to start. And frankly, my estimation of the man sitting to my right is that he could be moved by a sense of duty when his personal choice may be otherwise based on what he's done. I respect you for speaking about this, Board Member Alonso, and I respect Dr. Lewis immensely, but I think it's a disservice, not just to our process, I think it's a disservice to the gentleman to my right to try to push him into something that he might say yes to out of duty, but that he made a personal choice not to pursue. So with all respect, both for you and for Dr. Lewis, I don't think we should upend our progress and our process with someone who may be underneath everything, an unwilling candidate.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir. Any other colleague would like to speak at this time? Yes, Dr. Bendros-Meningo.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and to my seatmate to my left, thank you. Sometimes, as you said, Member Alonso, someone has to say something. I'm honored and privileged to have spoken strongly and highly for Dr. Michael Lewis before he became deputy. And sometimes you just have to say to them, having been a state representative and all, you just need to do it. And he would be okay if I said, Dr. Mike, you just need to do it. What a climate we're in. And I know there are so many children who would just have loved to see you sitting there permanently. Nonetheless, I agree with my member Geller. So I'm left-handed as a, well, I'm ambidextrous, but the idea is I would not be able to go to a meeting tomorrow night in Little Haiti if I didn't say something. We are honored with your presence, Dr. Mike. Stay the course, continue to be as you are with all that you do. Taking all of our calls on the weekends and you will say quickly, I'm on it. And if you don't have that reply immediately, you find it. So I'm honored that you're sitting there right now, but I agree with having you not pushed to do a job that you probably, you know what, I don't really want to. We're glad that you're here today taking charge of what we're doing right now. But I would love to have... taken you across the finish line.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. I don't see anyone else, so I would just like to say, first of all, every one of my colleagues, whatever each one of you, truly I respect as professionals, and I'm people that truly care, and it comes from the heart. And I know that your statement, Board Member Alonso, came from the heart, and I do concur. I know Dr. Lewis, I've known him for so many years, in so many different capacities, because he's always been in my district. And everything that has been said about him is a thousand percent true. He is phenomenal. He responds to you immediately. He's a problem solver. He is fabulous. But I believe in the process. And there's a process in place. And it started from the very beginning where anyone and everyone who wanted to participate was able to do so. We opened it up, look, we have people that are not even from Miami, from Chicago, from different parts of the country applying, and this is the process that we have to follow. So because I am someone who does believe in following the process that we have established here together as a team, that that process needs to be followed at this time. But I know that great things, Dr. Lewis, will be coming your way in future years, and nothing but great wishes for you in your future. So at this time, you made a statement, or did you make a motion? I don't even remember. Just a statement for discussion.

It was a statement for discussion, and I appreciate you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to express that. And I just want to, you know, when people need to be recognized, they need to be recognized. And sometimes they're put into positions of leadership that limit them. But as it was said, this is just the beginning of his journey, and I won't steal my seatmate's but I really appreciate Dr. Lewis and for him taking lead and leading us through a lot of these different meetings and being here. So I just felt it was important that I recognized that feeling and letting him know that we see him and we see the work that he's doing. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So we're gonna go back now to where we were. I would like our general counsel, sir, to please, if you could, go over the numbers. We have it here as well. but I'd like for general counsel to be the one to address this portion. Give them a moment so that they can have it. It's being disseminated as we speak.

Okay, yes, through the chair, the recording secretary has handed out the list. Mr. Bueno has four votes. Mr. Lozano has six votes. Ms. Mitchell, or Dr. Mitchell has one vote. Dr. Perez has one vote, Mr. Rosowski has three votes, and Mr. Villalobos has eight votes. Madam Chair, that concludes the votes during this portion.

So Mr. General Counsel, sir, then, as we look at the votes that are on here for the finalists, if you could please read those names again. We did the semifinalists, now we're looking at the ones that are the top scores.

Yes, through the chair, the names that have been advanced for the finalists at this point of the meeting is Dr. Lozano with six votes and Mr. Villalobos with eight votes.

Okay, question to my colleagues. Are you satisfied with two advancing or three advancing? We need to make a determination there, because right now only two names have been stated. Yes, and wait, I'm sorry, I had Board Member Geller first. Yes, go ahead, sir.

And Madam Chair, my hand has been up whenever you can recognize me.

Yes, I will call you in a moment. I would just say that that's our votes. We voted. We established a process. We said it wouldn't be a definite number. That's what we've come up with. That's our votes. So I don't think we actually need any other action. We said that would be what we did, and we've done it. So there we are.

Okay, I have Board Member Espino, Board Member Santos after. Go ahead.

I agree with Board Member Geller. We set the criteria. The criteria is set out five votes or more. We have two that meet that criteria. Therefore, we are advancing Villalobos and Lozano. The only two things left, I see them as any additional format issues and setting the date for the special meeting, I should say.

All right, thank you, Board Member Santos.

Thank you, Madam Chair. While I understand these are the votes we took and obviously the will of the board is clear and we're following this process, I need to put on the record how disappointed I am at the fact that we're going to land with two finalists interviewing the public. Our community engagement has been so clear from the first report and the second report we received. And I personally do not feel like we are doing right by our community's request of us. to be able to be a part of that process. Of course, they gave us input, but they have not seen any of these finalists answer any questions We have individually had the chance and of course, it's our job at the end of the day, but I just really wanted to put on the record how disappointing it is to see us land in a place where we're going to have only 2 semifinalists. Although I respect that clearly we followed a process here and we got here through the board's votes. So we'll respect that. But it is. I hope the community hears and will be tuning in to the next step of the process.

Thank you, Board Member Santos, and I would have liked to have seen three finalists, but this is what we voted for, and there's a process in place, I believe, in following that process. Again, personally, I would have liked to have seen three finalists in lieu of two, but that's not how we ended up. So at this point, sir, I'm gonna send it back to you before we proceed to the next portion that I wanna bring up.

Madam Chair.

Yes, Board Member Geller.

um i i do want to see if we can take a moment and circle back to something our facilitators said that he's already put out for us and i think we should take it into account um and if the chair would accept it and i leave that to you as our chair but i would move to say that we are going to follow the public interview process that the facilitator laid out with two minor adjustments. One is When the chair stated it, you said we were talking about one question per board member. And I'm good with that in principle, but I would like to just adjust it to say, and appropriate brief follow-up questions as permitted by the chair. So if someone says, well, you know, it's not exactly what I was asking, can you do this? If the chair deems that appropriate, you could allow that follow-up, not a completely new distinct question. So that's one. and then the other thing um is mr davis still here i don't see that he is but the gentleman from prism who spoke um i don't want us to have what could become a spectacle by allowing audience members directly to pose questions i i don't think that's the best course but i was influenced by Mr. Miles Davis' comment, the PRISM representative, that called for some direct interaction. And my suggestion would be that as opposed to, and I thought his comment that this is not the time to just have the public only get two minutes as they would get at a regular or special board meeting, that that could be opened if it was done, as he suggested, as a kind of community forum where members of the public would have a little more time to expound on what they thought. And as far as questions, I think the way to handle that is that members of the public can be distributed little cards or something like that, or I'm sure there's a more technological way that that can be done as well, and pose questions which they ask the chair to ask of the candidates and then the chair determines which of those questions, as opposed to just the board members' questions, which of those questions are appropriate. So if you think it's a good question and you want to put that out to the candidates, you'll have that authority, but we avoid any attempt to disrupt the process so my motion would be if you're if you would take that madam chair that we adopt the format for public interviews i mean with two of them we could take all the time we need for that whenever we schedule that and uh go forward with those two minor exceptions follow-ups permitted by the chair i guess it's three a little more time for the public to be able to state their feelings than the usual two minutes and the ability for the public to put written questions that they want asked for the chair to consider whether those should be asking if you would take it that would be my motion and i think that's what the facilitator has already led us to

Thank you, before I respond, I do see a Spino, Board Member Spino had his hand up.

Well, Madam Chair, here's a motion, so I'm not commenting.

There hasn't been a second to it, because he wants to know if I'm in agreement or not with it. And so I thought you wanted to make a comment.

I will make a comment then. So let me start by saying that I welcome all the public input as much as possible. And I appreciate your comments at the beginning of this meeting because they are extremely on point, which is this has been the most open, transparent, and deliberate process involving more public participation than I have seen in the prior selections of superintendents going back since I was paying attention. There's this inflection point now where we have an opportunity to speak with candidates publicly, and as I did with each of the semifinalists, speak to them privately. I invite our constituents to reach out to us and ask us to ask questions where we can either bring that information out during our discussions or have that question and information shared on social media, but I am adamantly opposed to an open forum for candidates, because at the end of the day, this is our only time to speak as a board, right? Whereas we can have as many public forums as we want, this is the only time we can speak as a board, and in the same way that we don't have public discussion at every moment of our meeting, We need to have this as a limited public forum so that we can conduct our business and tease out the hundreds and thousands of talking points that were received here and individually, some that they'll never make it in here. The anecdotal conversations we have at the grocery store, at the school pickup and drop off, that'll never make it into the report, but that's why there's nine of us to distill it. And so, to purpose of your motion, I'm good with adopting this format. I'm good with receiving the information. I'm just not... I'm not at the point where I'm willing to pass the microphone over and have an open mic night when that information should come to us, and then we distill that information how we do appropriate.

Thank you. Board Member Espino.

Madam Chair, may I respond directly just to that? Through the Chair, if you would second that, Board Member Espino, I'm open to modifying what I said. It was intended. to follow the facilitator's ideas, but I take it as a friendly amendment.

But I haven't spoken yet. The question was directed to me.

Madam Chair, and I just want to, for purposes of clarification, I didn't appreciate the prior comment, not yours, where somehow we have limited public discussion on it. And so my slight consternation was not at your motion, but just at the fact that we have had the most amount of public comment and involvement I've ever seen I certainly you don't see this when they pick city managers when they do other things like that And you know that process very very well, so I appreciate the deference and again my If you can reframe your motion after the chair comments it, I'll figure out how to get there. Friendly amendment. Friendly amendment.

Thank you very much. And to both of you, Board Member Geller, your comments are always respected, as well as Board Member Espinoza. I'm gonna tell you, I have been around for 50 years. So I've been here for lots of them. Most of them were selected on the dais. There was none of this. I make a nomination, you second, and here's the new superintendent of schools. I sat there, right on this side, and witnessed that. I'm not gonna say to what superintendent. I witnessed it. There has never been a more thorough I mean the process that we have conducted, the number of hours that has been spent by every board member, all of us. I was on the phone for an hour with each one of the individuals that I called. I asked several questions, not one, several to all of them. And I read what was on the website. I met with students. I heard what they had to say. I met with the unions and all of their representatives from the PTA, the PTSA, and I'm not the only one. My colleagues did the same. I know we've all been listening to public input as much as we can possibly do so. So I do take a bit of, I don't wanna say offense, but let me just say I don't agree with the statement made earlier that we have not had enough public input because I have never witnessed so much public input as I have throughout this process that is taking place right now. And I'm proud of it because it shows that all of us on this board are committed to making the best decision possible, the most consequential one we're gonna make, because it's about the students that we serve, and we can't get it wrong. And that's why we are so committed to spending the hours that we have spent on this process. So to board member Geller, sir, I appreciate where you were coming from, but I just cannot agree to going in that direction. And indeed, it's our time, this board's time, to ask questions to those two finalists. And if we wanna ask anything else, there's a telephone or we can ask to meet across the street and have a coffee and ask whatever questions we want additionally if we don't feel we have enough time. I personally feel that if a candidate has an opening one question per board member. Every single question should be the same from each board member to the individuals. They have an opportunity for a closing statement that we are giving them and we're giving ourselves. the opportunities that we need to make that final determination. And you told us earlier that your recommendation was somewhere between 45 minutes to an hour with individuals asking question to each one of the individuals present. But I believe it should be us asking questions. Personally, I don't feel that it should be them asking us. It should be, in my opinion, the other way. So thank you, Board Member Geller, sir, but I cannot agree to the recommendation that was made. But I do appreciate and know that you're coming from a very good place, and I appreciate that. So if we could proceed at this time, I know, sir, you want to say something. I have Board Member Santos also. Our recording secretary, you were supposed to tell me when she wanted to speak, and I'm not getting that information, so please let me know when Board Member Santos wants to speak, because I don't know when she wants to speak.

Through the chair? Okay, thank you.

Board Member Santos, I did hear you say you wanted to say something, ma'am.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And yeah, let me clarify my comments, because I do respect and see the surveys, the forums that each of you and I conducted. And I do think that that is a huge improvement from when I was a part of this process last time. And so I want to make sure that that is acknowledged and stated. And I certainly learned a lot through getting the reports from your engagements, and of course, from my own engagements. So That, I think, is a huge improvement. Just because something has been done one way before doesn't make it professional, thorough, or right. And I know each of you, I know it to be true that each of you constantly are seeking to improve things. Each of you have great ideas for how we, as a board, conduct ourselves every day in a more efficient manner. I don't want to conflate the two things. Just because we've improved doesn't mean it lands in a place where I, again, this is my own perspective and I respect everyone else's, doesn't mean we land at a place where we are being responsive to what we heard in both of those community surveys. Like you, I sat for many hours, spoke to each of those semifinalists, moved some forward, didn't move some forward, and certainly took everything that the community had said to me through your forums and through my forums into those conversations. At this point, however, the public has not seen any candidate respond to some of the questions. Frankly, I think there's even a lot of misinformation about some of the candidates. And so I would have liked to see a greater number of finalists in front of the public answering questions publicly, not necessarily from the public, but in a public forum where where our community could really feel brought along on that next step of the process. And so as far as the finalist interview at this point, the last time in 2022 when I participated in this, I totally agree with the uniformity of one board member asking their same question of all the finalists. What I found myself really craving and we weren't able to get to last time was there are some clarification questions that are individually related to a candidate's background or a candidate's vision. And so what I wanted to propose was that of course we keep uh you know as mr lechner has laid out that uniformity of each board member sort of bringing their one question to each interview um and then allowing one individualized questions for a total of two questions per board member if we choose to we don't have to and many of us probably won't choose to ask a second um you know question that's individualized to that to our previous conversations or questions or concerns with that individual um and so that would I would propose, of course, then you have to be mindful of time because we're not going to have very long interviews. We should keep it contained if we and I know this happens all the time in interviews. We could do a time limit so that the candidate has sort of a framework of maybe five minutes per question. If we do two questions per board member maximum, we're looking at an hour and 20, really an hour and 30 with intro and closing. And I do think it's very important for the candidates to have a chance to ask of us the questions they may have. I know this is really a two-way interview. It should be at least if we want a leader who understands the fit and what this board is looking for altogether. So to summarize, I would like to propose that we consider eight board member questions, one per board member, plus the option to ask an individualized question of each candidate with a time limit of five minutes. And I can make that motion or discuss it if anyone else thinks that's interesting.

All right, thank you very much for your input. Do I have any other colleagues that wanna follow up with any comments at this time? All right, I don't see any others, so Board Member Santos, if you want to pose that as a motion and you get a second, then we'll go into discussion. And if not, and if it goes through, fine. And if it does not, then we'll follow up accordingly. Again, it's what the majority of the board, the will of this board, which is what I would like to see together in unity so that we can make the best decisions possible. So I will, if there's no one else that wants to speak at discussion time, go ahead and make your motion. Board Member Santos.

I move that we adopt the HYE framework for the final interview of eight questions, same standardized questions, one per board member, plus the option to ask an individualized question. One additional individualized question should we have it with a limit of five minute answers on those questions.

Would that be including an opening statement and a closing statement that I feel is extremely critical?

Yes, Madam Chair, as adopted, yes, as HYE presented it, which includes the opening and closing.

Thank you, okay, great. Do I have a second for that particular motion that has just been made? There is no second at this time? Okay, we're in discussion. All right, then we'll just vote up or down. I don't believe there's anyone who wants to discuss at this time. So all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right, all opposed say nay. Nay. All right, so motion fails. Let's move forward. I know you wanted to say something, sir.

For the record, Board Chair, did the Board vote on the proposed, okay, so I think that would be next. Right, that would be, go ahead. To include the opening statement and the closing statement, which is, you're correct, not on here, but part of our standard process.

Thank you. All right, so that is what we will be voting on now. I have Board Member Alonso, sir.

Madam Chair, just for clarification, and in an effort to streamline and be as efficient as possible, we're down to two candidates, right? Yes. Everybody on this board has had an opportunity to speak to each one of these candidates. I know we have a process put in place, but I wanted to ask legal counsel, being that we have two candidates, we've all spoken, are we required to wait to August 15th to make a nomination as this board? Or as Madam Chair said, the board could do as it pleased, right? And if there was a vote of five members, a candidate could be selected. So through the chair, is there something that's restricting us from streamlining and being more efficient or not? Mr. Attorney, through the chair.

Mr. General Counsel, sir.

Yes, through the chair, so if I understand the question correctly, so at the previous meeting, the board had voted, one of the previous meetings, and I can get the board item and the minutes, the board had voted to name a candidate not prior to August 13th, and there was a big discussion about it, and the board voted on it, then the minutes were changed, et cetera, so that's where that came from, as far as the naming of the candidate. And then the interview process that was set forward in the framework that was adopted previously by the board.

Yes, thank you. I have Board Member Alonso.

So just for clarification, I felt as I didn't get a straight yes or no, so are we allowed to veer off that process? I guess obviously if we had a majority vote we could, but are we allowed, and I just do this from Streamlight Efficiency, it's the beginning of the school year, we all have a lot going on, and I just want to be as efficient as possible, especially with staff that gets brought into all these meetings, so Is it a yes or a no through the chair?

Yes, go ahead, Mr. General Counsel.

Yes, through the chair. I guess if there's five votes, I guess the board could change that process, but that is the process that's been previously adopted by the board.

Madam Chair, thank you. Yes, I'm gonna call on everyone. I'll be the last one to speak. Board members, be no sir.

Just a point of really a clarification. We adjusted a date once before. the period of time by which we had to submit our semi-finalist recommendations to the entirety of the board. So it's a roadmap and we haven't retreaded, but as we kind of like continue to finalize and hone that edge as we get closer, that's all I have to say.

Thank you. Board Member Blanco.

Madam Chair, Board Member Alonso, I'd like, I want to thank you for bringing that up. I was ready to speak on that when we got to the process. If you recall back in April, I made a very strong argument as to why this election needed to happen, not before students went in, but before our teachers went in. We very much spoke in that meeting in April that we needed to balance urgency with thoughtfulness and that we had to be intentional. And if there's one thing I've heard from just about everybody on this board say is that we have done the most thorough and transparent process that has ever been done. So if we have already done that, we are down to two finalists who are local, who don't even need to travel far to come in for an interview. I would like to make a motion that we select a name, the next superintendent, prior to the opening of schools, and by that I refer to the opening of schools of teachers with that August 7th date. If there is one thing that I heard over and over again is the amount of uncertainty that this district and its employees feel. As I went through the graduations and had an opportunity to see almost every one of my principals, as I've seen teachers, the one thing they say is they are fearful of what is happening with the budget, with employment, with being surplused, with consolidation of schools, with the enrollment, there is a lot of uncertainty. We have a referendum that we're going to be going out to the community and to make a decision weeks after school starts when we can put ourselves in a position to make a decision before the start of school just doesn't seem to make sense to me. When I looked at my survey results and I look at everything that was collected from the district and all of the other board members, but I will speak specifically to mine. I believe I saw that out of the board member responses, there were just short of 300. It was about 280 something, I believe. 120, more than 120 of those were mine. 70% of the respondents who took time to fill out the survey were employees. And one of the things that they talked about the most was teacher retention and schools. We're talking about their jobs and their livelihood. As a former, oh, I'm still an educator. As an educator, and I know there's several of us here, you know that the start of schools did not start when those students walked in. Schools begin when we plan and when teachers arrive and are setting up their classrooms, are getting their class lists, And while we serve the students, as Board Member Benderos-Mendigo loves to say, those with the short legs, okay? But who serves them day in and day out is our teachers. And our teachers, I can tell you from at least all of the conversations that I have had, feel a lot of uncertainty. Work begins for them before the students walk in. In addition to that, we've had some changes that we did not anticipate. We need to hire a new CFO. The next superintendent should be part of that hiring process. We have a strategic plan we just adopted. We're gonna be entering collective bargaining. We heard UTD. All of those things require, in my estimation, that we have a superintendent before the teachers report to school. I have often said that because of my background in counseling and in psychology, I believe in focusing on an individual. But as a school board member, I have to focus on the collective individual, which is the state of this district. And when I look at the over 360,000 individuals we serve, when you look at our students and our employees, that is what drives this commentary. When we look at the community feedback that we got, especially with the part two, the community is asking for transparency, which I think we have had, but they are asking for a superintendent who is visible, who they can trust, and who can communicate with them. And when we have an opportunity to do that and put one in place before the start of the school year, I think it just behooves us to consider it. So thank you, Board Member Alonso. I didn't hear you make a motion, but I would make a motion that we select the next superintendent before, I believe, August 7th is the opening of schools.

Thank you. Point of clarification, Madam Chair. Yes, I know we still have people that wanna speak. I know Board Member Alonso would have made a motion, but I had asked at first we make comments and I know that you would have done that.

At the appropriate time, I'd like to make a motion.

Yeah, because I did ask for comments, discussion, not motions. I said motions after everyone has the opportunity. Board Member Santos, I'm getting to you. I just wanna make sure that I clarify that publicly. Also, I wanna make sure that everyone also understands that we do have a current superintendent who has a contract till February 14th, 2027. So when we select the next person, you can't have two superintendents at the same time. That's a statute. That's a statutory requirement, one superintendent at a time. This is a superintendent and whatever name we want to give them in training, whatever we want to decide, we call that person. But I do want to make that clarity that there is still a current superintendent. So it's not that we don't have a superintendent now, but that the other person will be called whatever name we decide to give them. But all the main decisions, obviously, should be made by the incoming person together with the current superintendent. But the current superintendent is still here until that date. Board Member Santos, I know you've been waiting anxiously, so I'm gonna recognize you at this time.

Thank you, it was a point of clarification to Board Member Blanco's comments because naming a superintendent and having a superintendent start are two different things. So I wanted her to clarify what she was referencing so I can understand the motion that will come later.

Okay, thank you. Board Member Blanco.

Through the Chair, Board Member Santos, first of all, congratulations. Thank you. You know, for me, ideally, would be naming and selecting, right, and having them start. Out of respect for Board Member Alonso who first made the comment, I retract the motion, I will let him do it. I was just ready to make one. I think, and some of that may depend on who was named or who was selected. Right? So I'll defer to Board Member Alonso as to how he would like to make his motion, and I think, I guess from there we can continue discussion.

Thank you, Board Member Blanco, I appreciate that. Board Member Geller, and then we go to Board Member Alonso.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of points here. We can't really, as was just pointed out by Board Member Blanco and others, and the Chair, Discussing the selection and when we choose who the next superintendent will be must take into account that after we make that selection, our attorney needs to actually negotiate a contract with whoever it is of our two finalists i mean they're both right here from south florida but one is in our system and one is in the system next door and whatever our choice is, there are some issues. Now, as far as the nomenclature, I mean, I suppose we could have a superintendent designate, as they do in Tallahassee, where they have a speaker designate and a president designate, and my dear sister has been through that process many times, as have I. So that's a nomenclature. But I think what was pointed up from the discussion is The selection is one thing, the negotiating and approving the contract is the second thing, but the idea of what transition period will be appropriate is yet another thing. I want to note the comments made earlier by the president of the teachers' union, and in fact, I'm told that there was a bargaining session scheduled yesterday that was cancelled. I'm told also that that's in part because we have to have an executive session to discuss some parameters with our team before they can even hold a meeting and unfortunately the New law governing collective bargaining is, in my opinion, unfortunate, and we heard at our last meeting about the constraints that it imposed, not the one, maybe it was the meeting before, but the constraints it's imposed on collective bargaining, which is, to me, just an extremely important issue. This board spent appropriately some public money to verify that our numbers on health insurance were correct with an outside auditor and did it on a rush, rush basis to help with collective bargaining. We got a clean bill of health on it. It was not very well remarked on, but that was great news that it upheld what we had been told. But yet here we are and we still have not moved forward on that collective bargaining, and I am concerned about that, and I think it was appropriate that that was brought up. I also have a matter of some personal privilege. I haven't been able to get away with my family since a year ago, and we are scheduled to be on vacation from sometime around the 30th or 31st of July until Monday the 10th of August, and I would not want to have to cancel those plans and I would not want to miss the meeting. So those very, I mean, really it's basically one week. It might be the preceding Friday and we may be back on a Monday, but it's just a week. And I would hope that that's not a problem for us in moving forward, particularly where we've so streamlined the field, but It's also my understanding when we had selected the 13th, I had proffered that because it was the opening of school. I'm told that we're not having our August meeting on Wednesday the 12th because that's too close to the start of school. Apparently, we've been moved back a day till the 11th just because the 12th is too close to the 13th And if we're, in fact, that's why I'm coming back on the 10th, is because we have a board meeting on the 11th, though I think I'll miss committee meetings the week before. And I just wanna throw out there, at least in terms of my schedule, that if we're a ready meeting On the 11th, perhaps that could be the day that we also take care of what business remains with selection But I do want to hear my colleagues' thoughts about transition. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. And I will say the contract to the superintendent is done by the chair together with the general counsel. And again, based on direction given by my colleagues on the board. That's how it's typically done. And the second part I do wanna address is that we are having a special meeting because when we have board meetings and there's so much going on, look at the amount of time that we have spent today, thus far, and we're not done yet. So I, as a chair, am not in favor of having this done during an actual board meeting. However, I know that everybody wants to have a little vacation here or there, and this is a group, by the way, that meets 12 months a year. We are the only ones, and one of our priorities that we submitted to the state for consideration was that they give us one month off like other entities have. But with that said, I want to bring everybody back to where we need to be. So board member Alonso, sir, board member Blanco graciously understood that I had asked for just discussion and then motions to be made. So she's given it back to you. So this is your opportunity to do so.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And thank you to all my colleagues, specifically board member Blanco for your comments. I have two sisters that are teachers. I hear it daily from them. I visited my schools and new principals that have been sent to new schools for the start of the year, and there is a lot of uncertainty. There is a lot of concern. And this board needs to focus, and we need a superintendent that's also gonna be focused in driving that next step. Because not only do we need to hire a CFO, we've also been appraised that Danny Mateo, who was chief of innovation, which led all of our magnet programs across our district, has also left the district, and now we have an interim person in that position. So the superintendent needs to have those roles put in place before the start of the school year. It is that critically important. So in an effort to streamline and be efficient and also thoughtful because we've had a very thoughtful and thorough process. We have met numerous times, we have all met with the community, we have all interviewed these different candidates, both internal and external. I wanna make a motion to name Mr. Villalobos as superintendent designate and authorize that the board chair to negotiate timelines and compensation in consultation with our general counsel.

Okay, at this time, do I have a second? No, there is no second, so motion fails. All right, so bringing it back again, back to you, sir. Please, let's take it from where we left off so that we can vote accordingly to what we need to deal with at this time. You wanted to say something? Yes. Yes.

I had deferred to Board Member Alonso because he was talking about moving the process along, being efficient. Hearing his motion, I'm not in favor of that. I think we need to go through an interview process. We've already named two finalists. So I would like to have, to make a motion that we conduct that final interview and name our superintendent before the opening of schools of August 7th. Yes.

all right do i have a second again madam chair point of order santos would like to speak yeah point of clarity on that motion yes to name name a superintendent I just want to be very clear for the record. We have a current superintendent, as you mentioned, Madam Chair, who has a contract through February. Obviously, legal counsel and the chair will negotiate all of that and what that looks like. I want to understand, and it's very important that it be clear, is it name, select, and then the start date gets determined later? Because there's a big financial cost to this district. If there is any contemplation by this board, to have the current superintendent's contract and any earlier than it currently does. And so Board Member Blanco, my point of clarity is, does your motion then contemplate a date any earlier than February 14th as an end date for our current superintendent?

Board Member Blanco and then I'll go to Board Member Espino.

Through the chair, that would be the motion, but I open it to discussion, and we can talk about it. I'll let the others speak, and this is just a motion. We can work it out and discuss.

Board Member Espino. Thank you, Madam Chair. Then Board Member Alonso, and I'll speak after everyone's done. Vice Chair Colucci also wants to speak.

In talking about this process, every once in a while, I'll harken Al Pacino on any given Sunday that says this is a game of inches. And we have taken the football up the field, down after down, step after step, deliberating on each step. And this now conflates two issues. Because the truth of the matter is, we have no idea who we're going to select. Obviously, it's going to be one of two individuals. And part of their commencement and our commencement is a mutual understanding of a date to be determined. We can't decide that right now. We can decide to name and then engage in the typical contractual conversation that has to happen and contemplate. a start date, a transition time. And so I just think that that puts the cart before the horse. It's the same way that earlier in the conversation I said, we'll get to the final procedures, but let's get through the semifinalists first. So I think that there seems to be consensus on moving it earlier. I think that was part of the conversation that many of us have had. We have one board member that says, if you can do it by the 30th, I get home on vacation. So if we pick the 30th, he gets to participate. He already left on vacation. Where'd he go? Where'd you go, Joe? He checked out, so. Anyway, I kid. I'm trying to lighten the mood a little bit. If we pick on the 30th, everybody can participate, and at that point, based on conversations, we'll have to have an evaluation of what that transition looks like at that time. So I don't want to muddy the waters just because it's impossible to decide right now.

Thank you. Board Member Alonso.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I agree with you, Board Member Spino, and that's why I had said superintendent-designate. That gives the opportunity for all the appropriate individuals, and obviously not right now electing anybody to be superintendent-designate, but when we go through that process, we would have a superintendent-designate, and through the negotiations that our board chair will have through the general counsel, they will always review contracts and see a way in which that individual, when the start time will be and how they would work, but as a, Similar to many transition teams, whether it be governor-elect or speaker-designate, they work in the transition team as they come in. So if we were to say to Board Member Blanco's board item that we would have a superintendent-designate by before the opening of schools um that would give us the opportunity now when the start date is we that's once again as board members penal says putting the cart before the horse we first have to select the individual and then that will define what the next steps is and when that start date is um but to board member gellers i and the reason why i hadn't made the motion just counting by votes that's why i had kind of said that um we should move quicker um and hopefully do this before the 30th so that we can have all of our board members present. We're already minus one board member because the board member resigned. I would hate to have to have another board member not be a part of this very important process and vote.

Thank you, Board Member Alonso. Vice Chair Colucci, ma'am.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I've been listening attentively to the discussion. I do have to agree with Board Member Spino. I don't want to conflate two different things. Right now, I think the goal at hand, and I think what, correct me if I'm wrong, Board Member Blanco, picking a date for that special meeting for having the finalists, the selection, which would be action number six. Am I correct on that through the chair? Yes.

Madam Chair, if I may. Yes, go ahead. in thinking it over, right, and during the discussion, I'll amend my motion to just say select by August 7th, because we don't know how that naming, if we can make it happen that fast. There's contractual issues depending on who is selected. We don't know when they'd be able to start. So I can amend my motion to say that we will select the next superintendent prior to August 7th. At that selection meeting, we can then have a discussion or, through the chair if our board attorney can provide some clarification as to when would be the appropriate time and entering contract negotiations and for us to have any kind of discussions. So I'm okay to amend my motion to say select the next superintendent prior to the August 7th opening of schools.

And through the chair, I know that there was a concern by Board Member Geller that he is going to be out. Can you repeat those dates again, Board Member Geller, that you had a planned vacation?

Oh, my goodness.

As soon as I get a reliable chair. It's the second time this thing has tried to escape me. Yes, we're currently scheduled to leave, depending on my daughter's last day of the semester at Miami-Dade, on the 30th or 31st of July. It's a Thursday or a Friday, and that's our target date to leave. We are planning to come back Monday the 10th precisely because we have a scheduled board meeting on the 11th. So I would ask for that. It's maybe slightly over a week. I have possibly, a little flexibility on the the last day or two of july as far as leaving although i don't know that the friday is necessarily good and i mean i guess i could come back on Sunday the 9th instead of Monday the 10th. But that's why I said that perhaps we could move forward on the 11th since we're already meeting. The Chair made a point on that. Let me just say that although I am very concerned, and I want to say again, about transition provisions, and I think the Chair highlighted that appropriately because we do have someone who has a contract. But whatever we decide about transition, I think it affects selection, but it doesn't prohibit selection because there is the designate possibility. But I just want to say that if the 13th is a bad day, I could be here, like I said, if necessary on the 10th. We have a meeting on the 11th. Perhaps we should convert the meeting on the 11th to this purpose and postpone our regular board meeting till later in August. So anyway, just some thoughts.

Those are my guess.

One moment please, everyone.

Through the chair, if I may. Yes, go ahead. Perhaps if we move it to before you leave, I know on the 29th of July, we have a special session at 4 p.m. If we have the meeting in the morning, that could be a possibility. You would still be here, and we would get this done prior. I do have to agree wholeheartedly with my colleague. board member Blanco. Right now there's a lot of anxiety, uncertainty in our district. Right now, I don't see waiting another three weeks, another month to make this decision. We have two members, the two finalists that live, one obviously is in the district and the other one is in a neighboring district nearby. They can be here and that is a week from tomorrow. And that gives all of us, it gives time for us to have the interviews. And if everybody is amenable to that, I think that that's something that we should consider. And that's what I just want to recommend through the chair. Thank you.

And I have board member Espino.

Was that a motion? No, no, no. Right now we're just.

Right. Board Member Espino and Board Member Blanco, it's her motion, so.

I'll accept the motion to have the meeting and do the selection on that date. I was actually looking at the calendar and saw that we will be here that day anyway for meetings at four and at six.

Yes, no security meeting that day.

I was using that date as before as a way to guide the discussion, but if we can all land it on having that meeting on July 29th in the morning, whatever time the chair deems appropriate, then I will take that friendly amendment.

Thank you, and I was gonna mention that because we're here. We can be here all day long and take care of that situation on that given date. One moment, sir. Do I have Board Member Santos who wants to speak again?

Yes, Madam chair. Thank you so much. And I appreciate the clarity. I'm fine with the sort of selection process. I do agree. They're 2 different things, but they're naturally intertwined. And so I just wanted to be very clear that as we move into the next step, after we select. that there's a very high financial cost to whatever transition and start date gets discussed at that next step. So thank you for clarifying that your motion does not address that next step. It only addresses this first selection step. And I will say, I will more than likely, if it is on the 29th, still need to participate remotely. And so I just wanted to, to ask for that upfront, so there were no surprises.

Thank you, Board Member Santos, and I have said this also in the past, I don't have a problem with what we're doing here, but right now, I'm selecting the date and all of that, but there is a very high financial cost if there is going to be a selection of anyone in the superintendency prior to the current superintendent's contract being finalized. So just wanna put that on the record. I've said it before and I will repeat it again. And we've been in a financial, if you wanna call it that. We've had a lot of challenges this past year, financially, and we have to be good stewards also of, that's part of our fiduciary responsibility of the dollars that come into this district. Yes, sir.

Yes, through the chair, and just to clarify, and I think Mr. Espino did touch on this issue. So what happens is under the board policy, the board, it takes five votes under board policy to name a superintendent. Once the superintendent is named, the tradition of this board, and it used to be in board policy, the board would then have a public meeting where it gives the chair direction on what it wants in the contract. It would say salary range, benefits, et cetera. All of that is stated publicly to give the chair guidance so that she could go back and negotiate the terms and conditions of the contract. Just thought I'd bring that to the board's attention. And if there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir. Do I have anyone else? Board Member Geller.

First, I want to thank the maker of the motion and others who've spoken for respecting my vacation. I need it. So thank you for that. And I am available on the 29th. I would say for those who have similar issues that when we say morning and all day, I would much prefer, just in the course of discussion, to not have it be 9 a.m., which means coming at the height of rush hour, which is difficult, whether it's, you know, as early as 10 or 10.30 or even 11. I mean, we've got till 4, and frankly, as important as the workshop is at 4, we could certainly impinge on it if we needed to. I do just want to say again that picking and giving instructions on contract and all that's great, but... instructions on the contract whether that's something that as the our council has referred to taking place in a public meeting whether that means at the end of a meeting that we're having on that or a separate meeting scheduled i'll i'll defer to him because it's my first time through but i just want to again say and echo the chair's comments about the existing contract and being good stewards of public money we cannot give clear direction for the negotiation of the contract and i understand now the process is the chair and the council and someone else did i hear okay um with the guidance of the board as well we cannot give clear direction on that I don't want to sound like a broken record, without addressing transition. Because you start at the end of your transition period, although there are transition things like superintendent, designate, or something that can be done. But those questions have to be addressed in order to give instructions on what to negotiate in the contract. So I'm not insisting that we make that decision this minute, but we have to understand we can only kick that can a little bit down the road and cannot finalize a contract with whoever we choose without addressing them.

Thank you. Thank you very much. And I'm gonna take us back to Board Member Blanco. I want her to repeat her motion. But before she does, I do want to state for the record that the current superintendent has days that he either takes them or he loses them. And this is something that all of the employees here have. And so that's also something that is very, very important because there's a pretty significant number of days that are available to the superintendent, as he rightfully should be able to have. So just putting that on the record, following the comments that have been made. Board Member Blanco, if you could at this time, please. State now with the revisions, your motion so that we can either vote it up or down.

So thank you, Madam Chair, and to our board attorney, just let me know if this is appropriate, because I know I made a motion, but I'm looking at your item six on SP1, and so I think maybe just for ease, if we amend item six to follow my motion, so that it reads, authorize the school board chair to call a special school board meeting on July 29th, scratch the rest until it says for the purpose of conducting the final interviews and the finalists and name the next superintendent of schools as approved by the board in the superintendent search framework period.

Okay, we have a second.

Second as amended.

All right, discussion? All right, we're voting it up or down. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? One opposed, did I hear that correctly? Yes, okay. Yes, thank you very much. I just wanna make sure, because last time we had a little confusion there. Are you opposed or not, sir?

I'm opposed.

He is opposed, yes.

I think it's too soon.

Okay, so he's opposed, and so therefore motion now has to be approved as amended. Do I have a motion? A second? All in favor, aye. Aye. Any opposed?

No.

All right, thank you very much. Motion passed. All right, we're going back to you, sir.

Okay.

Through the chair, we are almost done. I think you actually tackled much of this. So before we leave this slide, just to clarify, we will have that opening statement and the closing statement. We'll have roughly 60 minutes, one question per board member, with a follow-up if it's sort of a clarification question. So we confirm that this slide is really... about just one preparing for several questions in case your colleagues on the dais ask a very similar question um one question per candidate we just named it that's been covered so that's fine the only other thing is just question alignment is I heard discussion around potentially soliciting questions from your constituents. Often what we will encourage boards to do is kind of keep it aligned to the community engagement report, the job description, and the attributes, which are all the things that we had already talked about. But I don't know that that's necessarily a decision point, as you all have decided you're gonna come up with the questions and bring them forth for the public interview on July 29th. So I guess the question is, does anyone have any thoughts about the kinds of questions as it related to the job description, the attributes and the...

So, no, but I do, at this point, I would like clarity on the time of the meeting. That has not been addressed. We talked about, don't have it at nine o'clock in the morning, but we haven't talked about a specific time per se that I heard, so. I will call it then. All right, I have the discretion as a chair, so I will go ahead and do that. You were asking about the questions that are going to be asked. I personally have my own questions. I have questions that I wanna ask on my own. I don't need anyone to give me the questions that I need to ask. That's me, I don't know what my colleagues would like to do, but that's how I feel it needs to be done. Any comments on that, colleagues?

Yes, this is Board Member Santos.

Okay, yes.

the uh i i don't recall how it was done in 2022 but um i would suggest that we submit our our question to the general counsel and they can guide us if there's overlap so that it's not just in real time uh but we are sort of agreeing to ask about different topics beforehand with with the general counsel's help um instead of coming up with our three and then in real time sort of switching it up uh while we're in the interview

Thank you, Board Member Santos. And that is how we did it last time, but you do bring up a good point that we might not want to be repetitious on the same thing. So I'm going to ask our general counsel, sir, if you could clarify that, or it doesn't matter.

Through the chair. It's up to the board. I'll take direction that the board gives me. It is a short period of time to turn it around, so that does present difficulties, but I'll do whatever the board directs me to do.

Right, okay, thank you. So there should be no issue with that. We can go ahead and submit the questions to you. Anybody have any problem with that? I don't, all right, great. So we will go ahead and submit our questions to the general counsel so that you can know if there's any overlap or not, because there could be overlap, absolutely.

So through the chair, if the board wants to go in that direction, my recommendation is maybe by a certain date or deadline, you submit the questions and then I put it together and then send it back to the board so the board can see it and then maybe the board can choose from that selection, if that works.

Yes, thank you, I think that that would work fine without any issue, and you've been doing, you've been giving us all the updates. I mean, we've had like 30 of them already, so 31, 32, 33, it's okay. I think that that would work out without any issue.

Vice Chair Calucci? Through the Chair, if I may, Mr. Harvey, how many questions would you like us to submit in the event that there are duplicate? Let's say myself and another board member ask the same question, and then we can list them in priority. This is my first question, second, third.

Sorry, through the chair. So what I was contemplating is maybe just having the board members submit the questions and then once I get it on one sheet of paper, I just send it back to the board so you could see the questions. Maybe I could try to organize them in some way and then the board can, you'll see your name and the question and then you can decide which question you wanna ask by checking it prior to the meeting, if that works.

Thank you. I don't see a problem with that, so I think it would work.

Board Member Blanco, you would like to say something, ma'am? Thank you, Madam Chair. Through the Chair of the Board Attorney, just clarification, is there a specific date you would like us to have it by? Through the Chair.

Yes, I believe that you said, Mr. General Counsel, sir, that you were going to submit a memo to us requesting, you know, for giving us a date and time that he needs to have it.

As I think about it, Friday would probably be best. And then that way I can get it back to you on Monday.

Okay. All right, well, back to you, sir.

I'm taking stock of the decision. So we'll have it by end of day on Friday, this Friday, July 24th, to have your questions. Board, I would encourage you to submit several questions for Mr. Harvey to compile in case there is that overlap. And then you'll go ahead and take a look at those questions when they're sent back on Monday and be ready for the 29th. With, again, same question asked for both candidates for each board per your vote earlier. Okay, so just logistics. Order of questioning. We go one end of the day, send back, and that's it, that's typical, standard, pretty easy. Other finalists, as I mentioned, it's not really a decision, but we will take the other finalists out of the room while you are questioning your first finalist. Travel reimbursement, I suppose it's not needed at this point, but otherwise the board would have approved it, okay. I think that's already been answered for these, unless the board needs to decide, yes, we'll do this type of order of questioning. It's more clarification when you come in on the 29th, how this will proceed.

All right, thank you. So two things, now that we have discussed everything, we've made some amendments, we do need to take a final vote as amended because we've made several changes. So Mr. General Counsel, sir?

And one other thing, I didn't catch a vote on Santos' request to appear virtually. Oh, was that part?

Right, a second. Second, second. All in favor? Aye.

Okay.

Any opposed? Seeing none, motion passes. So now we can go ahead and move forward with a final vote. We've addressed all the different actions that have been presented to the board. Again, do I hear a motion to amend the board actions that have been presented? I have a motion.

Motion to approve SP1, identifying Villalobos and Lozano as the finalists in item number four, to set the date of the selection meeting to July 29th. And we already did that. Oh, and also to incorporate and to approve the procedures in the meeting, the meeting procedures as outlined on pages 27 and 28 of the presentation.

All right, do I have a second? Discussion? None? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed, nay. Thank you, exhausting all of the business before us. This meeting has now concluded. I'm sorry, I do have a board member that's requesting to say something. Absolutely, thank you. I have one standing ready to go.

Go ahead, Dr. Bendros-Manuel. Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. And tomorrow is the holiday.

Oh, okay, great. Thank you, colleagues, again, for your professionalism and your patience, and this meeting is now concluded.