Fiscal Accountability and Government Relations Committee - Regular Meeting

All right, good morning and welcome to the Fiscal Accountability and Government Relations Committee meeting for Wednesday, February 4th, 2026. I'm now calling to order the meeting. Can we please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance led by Board Member Dan Espino. 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. Can we please remain standing for a moment of silence, as well as keeping in mind in our prayers the students at Columbus Senior High School. Okay, before we get started, I'd like to state the committee membership. You have myself, Roberto Alonso as chair, Mr. Danny Espino as vice chair, Ms. Lisa Santos as a member, Mr. Joseph Geller as a member, Dr. Dorothy Bendos-Mindigal as an alternate member, and Ms. Mary Blanco as an alternate member. Our first order of business is to approve the minutes of the Wednesday, January 7th, 2026 Fiscal Accountability and Government Relations Committee meeting. Are there any questions or concerns from any fellow board members? Seeing none, I have a motion. Do we have a second? All in favor? Okay, the next order of business is to move the E items to the floor. May I get a motion to move the E items to the floor? All in favor? Okay, our first item's E1, Mr. Steiger.

E1, Mr. Chair, is the monthly financial report for the period ending December 2025. Any questions or comments? E-14. Yeah, Mr. Chair, E-14 through E-19 are the resolutions to the budget for the funds that need them. So I'm happy to answer any question board members have on any of the items from E-14 to E-19, any of the resolutions.

Thank you, Mr. Steiger, and thank you for taking time to meet with me. I know you've met with the majority, if not all, board members. I know everybody has probably had meetings, but does anybody have any questions or comments on any of these items? With none, we're good. Okay, so we now move to E66.

E66 is renewal of the district's property insurance program.

Questions or comments? None, okay. E86. Good morning. E86 through E89 through E91 were discussed extensively yesterday at the Audit and Budget Advisory Committee. E86 is the State of Florida Auditor General Operational Audit.

Any questions? Yes, Dr. Allen, you're recognized.

Through the chair, he's going through all of them? Yep. Okay. Through the chair, we had an extensive, as the board's representative, on the ABAC on yesterday, we had extensive conversations regarding a number of these issues. The ABAC has moved to move these items to the board. However, through the chair on E90, an issue was raised of which I share that same sentiment, that the Description of the actual audit connotes that it is an audit of the district's school bus safety program, and I think that's an inaccurate depiction of what this audit reflects. When you look at the district's overall school bus safety program, that was not what this was. It was obviously a response to an item that was unanimously approved and proffered by our chair, but it was specifically related to the vendor bus patrol, and the title of the audit would connote that this is a comprehensive audit of the school district's school bus safety program, and the description is factually inaccurate. So I would like to, in the spirit of the conversation we had yesterday, to have that title amended, to not reflect that, because obviously that's not what it reflects. through the chair. Thank you. Any further comments? Did you have a comment?

No? Okay. So as the maker of the item and the request, I agree with you. I mean, this wasn't a full overall bus safety. We weren't looking at the interior of our buses. We weren't looking at the way in which they're maintained or kept up. And it might have been on my end when I created the board item, and I know that our auditor was diligently working through this to making sure that all the requests that the board had, and it was a unanimous vote, was conducted through this audit, which I do want to thank him and his team for an incredible job on it. I've had several people call me and complimenting us on how thorough the district was from an auditing standpoint in making sure that we were looking out for the district, for the residents, and for our students and those that we serve. So I'm in agreement with you, Dr. Graham. Do you have a suggestion?

Yeah, well, through the chair, just again, I want to thank you for your item, and I will caution you to be very, very careful on commending individual auditors. I mean, I want to say a shout out to Ms. Avara Sanchez, but Mr. Goodman yesterday got Got real sensitive that he wasn't getting enough love from me, so be careful. But I'm going to do it again anyway. Outstanding work that was done through the team, headed by Mr. Goodman as the leader of that team. You feel better now, Mr. Goodman?

Thank you. Through the chair, thank you.

Ms. Sanchez, I see you over there. Great work. Outstanding work from all of the members of the team, from the school audits to the charter school audits. You have a phenomenal team that's responsive. And Mr. Chair, your item was acknowledged for what it is, but I will say it was not a fault of the item because the items, as we know, is not reflected in the subject. It's reflected in the recommend. So your recommend was on point as it relates to the scope of that audit. They adhered to that scope. So it was not a reflection of the subject, but he obviously took the subject of the item and placed it as a reflection of the audit. So I would just like that to reflect What it is, Mr. Goodman, through the chair, do you have any thoughts? I don't want to edit your work, but you understand the concerns.

Through the chair, we can just call it the school bus infraction detection enforcement system.

So we'll change.

Yeah, I support that through the chair. We'll amend E90 as such.

That will be satisfactory because you understand the point. Of course. Thank you. I appreciate that. I'm comfortable with that, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

I spoke very adamantly, if I may, that this is obviously a program that is not implemented, is not operated by the school district. And, you know, pursuing was adopted through board policy, which did not go through a board approval. But we want to make sure that an appropriate policy, by the way, but we want to make sure that the messaging obviously is not something that connotes implementation operation by the school district. And that title would suggest to parents, I being one, my daughter rides the school bus. So if I see something that says this is a review of the school bus safety program, that would connote, that it's something involving my child, and that is not it. So thank you, Mr. Goodman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And even United being amended accordingly would be satisfactory.

Thank you. No, and I concur with you. And, you know, it is in the description, but I guess what really pops up is the school bus safety program. I did have a question. It's really not for you, Mr. Goodman. It's probably to staff. In the findings, and I think we've seen this now in the media, I'm sure we've all received calls, there was about 5,400 citations that the audit discovered that drivers had not been notified. What are we doing with these findings as a district now? I know that we don't run the program, as Dr. Gallin said. This is a third-party program. Operator, but the optics are that the district is the one that is involved in this So what are we doing with the findings of the audit as? Administration to follow up especially when it comes to notification and clarification to those that were issued citations through this bus infraction detection system So somebody that can answer from staff

Through the chair, Mr. Alonzo, and I apologize. I was coming in and out. I believe that the question is, is what is happening with those 43,000 students

And I know you're dealing with something else, so no worries. It was just in general, the audit came back with some findings. One of them that has come to light, and I read an article this morning that was forwarded to me, is on 5,400 tickets or citations that were dismissed, but yet no notifications were sent out to those drivers or those infraction holders. Can we as a district do anything as a district or through the provider to notify those 5,400 people of this situation? And what are we doing for those other 40,000 citations? I know there's been discussions back and forth to just notify drivers, whether it be through the district or through the company bus patrol, to let them know the status of their citations and what's going on with that process.

Through the chair, Mr. Alonzo, that is a packed up question and a good question. I would have to toss it over to Mr. Harvey as to the contract and the legalities that we may have on whether we can communicate with those individuals that got tickets or not because we're not the ones that issued them. So I would turn that question over to Mr. Harvey.

Yes, through the chair. This particular issue was not addressed in the agreement with bus patrol. or the vendor, I should say, so I think though that this is an important issue, an issue that we intended to address expeditiously as possible, so I think that if it cannot be done through the vendor, I think it's something that we should try to address as a district, because I think that was a priority of the board.

Dr. Dorch, I think you had a follow-up on that.

Yes, sir, and I disagree, completely disagree. I believe we did not, I believe the vendor should be able to respond to those. We do not track the individual citations or violations, and we don't know who they are. You know, our world or our students or our parents, and I believe that should be a good faith effort on the provider to do and conduct.

all right thank you and i appreciate the honest answer i i kind of concur with you as well i don't think the district is managing those our police department is not the one reviewing them we've all heard the back and forth and discussions that are going on with relations to the sheriff and the company um so i think these are all ongoing conversations while we're doing this because i know we're going to resolve this and we are going to get to a point that we will restart the system one way or another i know we're going to be talking about a board item later on today but i think it's critically important though that we communicate with those individuals in our community and that we ask the provider to please assist with that just so that we have transparency. I think we owe it to our community to at least let them know where we're at. It's been several months now that the system has been paused, not out of our control, it was paused by the sheriff, but I think it's important that we do communicate with them. But once again, thank you so much, Mr. Goodman, for your good work on this, for your entire team's effort in making this a successful project. Any other questions on E90? Yes, Board Member Geller.

Yes, just very quickly, Mr. Chair. I think I just want to agree with what you said. We have a board item. We're going to be talking about this. The audit says what it says. We're accepting the audit. Well done. Thank you, Mr. Goodman. And this topic is something that should be put into the board item, and it's something we should address in our negotiations. I presume we will, but just in case, let's just be sure that this is an additional action item and the superintendent was clear, this is something we're gonna ask the vendor to do, and if we're in negotiations to resolve other issues anyway, this just needs to be one of them, and let's talk about it when we get to the H item.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much. I now have Dr. Gallin, and then I have, okay, Ms. Ross.

Thank you. I'm going to be very, very brief, and I've had to be in and out, so I missed part of the conversation at the beginning. But my concern is with the due process portion in reference to those people that are still in limbo, if you may, that have no resolution and how is their due process for them if others, their tickets were, they were just dismissed and nothing happened to those people. And then you have the ones that requested the DOA proceedings, which was, what was the exact number through the chair? What was the number of the ones that requested the DOA?

Through the chair, Madam Chair, it's 8,000 plus.

8,000 plus. So the due process for those people to be equal to what everyone else received is a concern that I would like to know, how is that being addressed at this point in time for those individuals that are still pending their hearings, their administrative hearings, yet others were dismissed? through the chair.

And thank you. And just to clarify, because I know you were going back and forth, the ones that I was referring to are 5,400 that were dismissed already by the legal system. Those drivers have not been notified and that's where I was asking questions. I know there's a whole other discussion on the ones that are pending due process, but these are some that have already been dismissed by the legal authorities and having that, but I think we'll talk more about it later on during the H item, but I did also have Dr. Gallin, but before I do that, does anybody in staff want to respond to Chairwoman Rojas' question regarding the overall process?

Mr. Chair, if Ms. Rojas and you allow, I think when we enter into the H item, it would be appropriate because I'm sure other, and I want to address H item as it relates to the sheriff and myself.

Okay.

Thank you, sir. Is that okay with you, Ms. Ross?

Yes, that's fine. Dr. Gallagher.

Yes, through the chair, I was going to echo those sentiments, and you're spot on. I don't want to conflate E90 with H15. H15 is a pathway toward a resolution, but I do believe that E90, as I indicated on yesterday, is a foundation to remedy some of the deficiencies that have been identified, some strong recommendations, some findings. So, again, I think H15 would be the appropriate time to start an engaging discussion about a resolution. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, just one more comment. Thank you very much, sir. I just want to thank Dr. Gallin. He sits on the ABAC and represents our board and he's doing a phenomenal job. And so I just wanted to publicly say thank you because I do attend every single ABAC meeting and you're representing us very, very well. So I thank you for that. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Ms. Santos, you're now recognized.

Thank you so much. My questions are on a previous item E86, which you introduced Mr. Goodman. This is for our state of Florida auditor general operational audit. And I think Chair Rojas, because she did bring an item this meeting that will give us an additional update later on. There were two quick questions related to some of the findings there. The first one, is related to the public records request training sessions and new system, which I believe is called Next Request. Can you please give us an update on the training sessions? How are they going? Who's attending? And this might be for the administration.

Yes, this is for the chair. This would be for the administration. So which finding would that be that you're talking about?

Through the chair.

There's finding one with the public records request, which I think you wanted some clarification on that.

Yes, through the chair.

But I think you're also referencing maybe finding three where the threat management teams did not complete their training in a timely fashion. So I think those two, it seems like you're asking about those two. And I would ask the administration to respond to that. Mr. Chair?

Through the Chair, I'm asking about finding one right now.

I just want to verify, I thought it was about finding one related to public records request, am I correct?

Correct, yeah, and the next request system and the trainings that were mentioned by management.

I think Ms. Diaz is ready.

Good morning. Through the Chair, a training was conducted as recently as January 23rd, and we finished migration to next request on December 2024.

Thank you. Through the chair, what sort of percentage increase in time to answer have we seen since you implemented the system? It's been over a year through the chair.

So through the chair, the issue that we had had with the migrating to the system was that the old system was very analog, and everything was being done by hand. So when we were switching over to the other system, certain things may have fallen through the cracks, as was discussed yesterday. And I would have to get back to you on an exact percentage increase that we've seen, but so far we have implemented changes to try to remedy.

Thank you. And through the chair, the next request training is like, who's the intended audience who needs to understand and get this training?

Delegates through the chair, delegates for the different departments that process public records request. The last training that we did, we amplified it to also include district administrators that also include school site principals and administrators. So we amplified it, what we normally do.

Okay, thank you. I can ask follow-ups later. My other question on this item through the chair is on finding six, actually, and I'm happy to get some of this follow-up later on, but the main question I had was the district personnel that are under the contracts that are mentioned here, if those

employees of the contractor are they considered school district employees do they get a school district id do they go through the same background checks what's their status through the chair through the chair i think the answer is no they're not there's a distinction between contractors and employees but i would defer to the administration to clarify that what a level two is and and that

Can we have somebody from personnel? Because my understanding is that all individuals entering our schools have to go through the same background, even if they're a contractor. But Ms. Baglos, would you be able to answer?

Mr. Chair, I just want to make sure that we add something to it. These are re-fingerprinting, not initials. Oh, it's not that item, I'm sorry.

Through the chair, this is finding six on procurement procedures for the contractors that we have that provide EMTs, nurses, et cetera.

Through the chair, it's finding six, which is about the nursing contract, I believe, right? So anyone who's a vendor who comes in through our school system who has access to our students, are all through the fingerprinting department and they're all level two screening cleared. It's a requirement and the team has been doing it regularly.

Thank you. So through the chair and the findings from last audit, it was mentioned that some spreadsheet would be created, which by the way, I don't think is a good solution, but that was what was mentioned to track the credentials. so that we are appropriately billed. That's more about billing rather than safety. So thank you for clarifying the safety piece. Now on the billing piece, I know there's over 30 vendors, but one of them that's mentioned in here is 5.9 million for a healthcare provider. So what is our plan? Maybe what have we done recently to ensure that basically we're getting billed correctly for the credentials that the people have?

Through the chair, I'm going to turn that over to Mr. Diaz because that really does have to do with the contract and the billing and the credentials about what kind of nurse they are.

Through the chair, Ms. Santos, yes. So for this contract to service specifically, these are just medical providers that we allocated to more or less cover schools that might not have someone every day, right? So there's a variety of different type of entities such as LPNs, RNs, as well as EMTs. Depending upon the credential of that individual, there is an hourly rate. The finding was related to an individual that was contracted appropriately to the school. However, the hourly rate that was charged for that individual was inaccurate, right? So that's what the finding came back on. So what we've done since then, there's a mandatory verification credentialing that the Florida Department of Health has called a master quality authentication system that we utilize and make sure that every individual that these contractors say that are verified, they are actually verified. Their records are checked. by the Department of Health to ensure that the name of the individual, the information that the person has related to their credentials is 100% verified. At that point in time, we have service logs that we utilize to document the services that are provided at every single one of the school sites in which these individuals are at. My staff, as well as the entities that hire these individuals, cross-reference on a weekly basis those staff rosters to ensure that the accuracies are there. If there's any discrepancy, if there's any type of charges that we believe are inaccurate because the individual that was placed at this school and the hourly rate that was identified is inaccurate, no payments are put, no invoices are put until this entity is corrected. This was only one individual, unfortunately, that had this situation, but since that time, everything has been kosher. We've been moving forward, and I believe the assistance that we've put in place are good to go currently.

Thank you so much.

A lot more monitoring to take place.

Yeah, thank you so much, Mr. Diaz. Through the chair, when did that new monitoring system get implemented?

Due to Chairman Santos, it actually started at the beginning of this school year. So that took place since even prior to this finding coming through, we had already implemented this process because of best practices that we've learned from past.

Thank you so much. Well, thank you all, and I look forward to getting the next update through the chair's item.

Okay, any further questions or comments? Okay, we now move to E91.

E-91 is 56 charter schools, financial statements.

Any questions or comments? No? All right.

Thank you, I know we're still on the ABAC item, so thank you, Mr. Chair. On E87, there was a note under our foundation's audit around the 1099, I don't know if it's an issue, but there was a note about tax liability for 2019, 2021, and 2022. It's a small number, but I did want to get clarity. And I think you, I don't know if you have it or if you're still working on it, Mr. Goodman.

I'm still through the chair. I'm working on all the questions that we discussed at your briefing regarding the tax issue. It was the IRS assessed the formerly the entity formerly known as Finney, uh, in the, in the previous year, but they did not record it as a tax liability until the sec, the next year. And that created a, so that was an additional, I think it was $159,000, uh, dollar liability. And, uh, as discussed at the ABAC meeting yesterday, uh, it's being resolved, uh, The overall financial condition of the entity is solid.

Thank you. Through the chair, thanks for clarifying that. It is absolutely solid and, like I said, a very small figure. But given a lot of the conversations I've had with the superintendent and the academics team, it is important, and I'm very excited. I heard earlier I'll be getting an update on – we called it the software update for our incredible – SEIP program, it is such a good opportunity for so many students and did need some tweaking around payroll systems and around ensuring that it's just a modern system for both providers and for students and I can't wait to see everything that the administration has been working on for that.

Okay, with no further questions, we now move to E141.

E141 is award of an ITB for wastewater and potable water treatment facilities. Any questions or comments? Yes, Ms. Stiger, as you recognize.

Thank you. Through the chair, Mr. Stiger, I did ask a question. I was waiting on an answer around the spend last year is about 12% of what we're being asked to approve moving forward. So can you kindly explain why?

Actually, I think I have to turn that to, for E141, I think I have to turn that to Mr. Nicola for the increase in spending, yeah.

Good morning through the chair. Thank you for the question. Ms. Santos, those water treatment plants are due for an upgrade. And so the increase in costs is because we will actually have to start replacing components to that center. So we're asking for that as a capacity amount, because we are going to have to upgrade those three plants.

Thank you through the chair. So this is a this is not just a maintenance year.

This is a this next contract will involve actual redoing of actual actual rebuilding of certain components of the water treatment center. Yes. So that's why we're asking for that capacity.

Thank you, through the chair. I'll follow up with you, but I am curious to know if maybe there are new solutions and why we maintain these treatment plans and what is possible as a future solution.

Through the chair, open for that. It's a DERM requirement to keep these systems running, but more than welcome to sit down with you and look at other options. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions? All right, E142.

E142 is award of an ITB for pest control at our food service and labs.

Ms. Santos, you're recognized.

Thank you. I did ask, and I was still pending an answer on, usually you include the spend for the previous year. There's no spend on this item?

Yes, so my staff was still working on getting it. We will make the revision prior to the board meeting.

Thank you so much.

E143? Question or comments? Ms. Steiger, E143? Yeah, E143 is a word of an ITB for tree pruning and removal.

Thank you. I don't know, I'm on a roll. The bid has a starting date of January 14th, 2026, but we're voting on it in February. Is this because you're asking us for retroactive start date?

Go ahead. That's correct, Ms. Santos. The bottom line is we have a lot of trees to trim and we want to get going with it.

Through the chair.

I'm not sure that's allowed if Mr. Steiger. Through the chair and answer to the specific question. It's because our contract had run out then, so we're asking for a contract date starts. So we haven't been able to hire anyone since we've been in lapse of contract. So we're asking for a contract to start. after the first day after the last contract ended, but we are not going to use that retroactively. It's just so this new contract will start the day after the old contract ended. Correct.

Okay. Thank you. Follow-up, Mr. Chair? Yes, sir.

Why did the contract expire? Through the chair. Well, Madam Chair, Mr. Chair, Dr. Gallin, the contract expired because it ran out. The question was really why weren't we able to bring this to the board earlier? And it worked through the process. We had questions and a little bit of holdup during it. We anticipated bringing this to the board back in December, but there was a two-month holdup. and we're able to bring it to the board now. It doesn't often happen, right? This doesn't come to the board. This is not a common practice, but in this case, there was a holdup that required us to come out two months too late.

Through the chair, follow-up. So there is a process that maybe embraces anticipatory leadership, knowing you can anticipate this is going to run out, so maybe in a certain time, you start that process ahead of time. Yes. Because you do have a bottleneck within the bureaucracy. I make that analogous to a strategic plan that expired years ago. So certain things we want to make sure, especially in these financially fragile times. Right now we have to be austere, as you would say, and make sure that we know what's what We don't want to have certain things not covered because we don't have a contract.

Yes, I agree with you. Dr. Galland, when I first started working with procurement, this was a common practice that we would have contracts lapse. It's become very rare because Ms. Monfort and her predecessors have done a much better job of Coming up with a calendar, working with staff from the departments far, far in advance to try to bring this. This was an anomaly, but I actually understand Ms. Santos' point, and we will revise the item for it to start in February because it does no damage anyways. So we will have the contract start in February instead of January because asking the board to go back the month doesn't do anything for us.

And just for clarification through the chair, this is not a contract. This is an ITB.

Correct. It is an ITB. Yes. So they haven't been able to, anytime there is no ITB in place, then there's no one they can contact. And contract. Contract. Contract. Yes.

Okay.

Follow up on that, Mr. Steiger, just as we look and plan, right? What systems do we have in place as a district to monitor the expiration of these contracts?

Well, it's SAP, I think I'll defer that to Ms. Montfort, but it is, we have been using SAP GuideStar.

We actually, so through the chair.

We have a contract management system that we use, Bonfire. It gives us alerts. It also alerts the departments. So it's tied departments receive alerts six months in advance. And then we start the process of doing like a contract renewal or saying like, hey, we have to do a new solicitation. And that allows us to kind of work the queue. So there's always... a diff a variety of different factors that would determine like how fast one could work but the departments get the the person that is in charge of that contract gets an alert and then we get alert and we meet monthly to go over what contracts are upcoming what contracts are six months out and at what stages we are with each contract so Sometimes this depends on getting information back from the vendor. Sometimes it depends on having an understanding of whether or not there's more like terms or there's renewal options on a contract, but there is a system that we use, a software that's automatic. So when you approve an item, we enter it into the system and it automatically feeds us when we need to. We have different markers.

Thank you so much for the answer, and I'm glad we have a system in place. There was a little concern at first. But I guess the system does have its flaws, and we should look into it if we're missing some of these dates and deadlines. And then specifically, if it's departmental, who is the lead in each of those departments, right, to be reviewing that? So it might be something that we want to revisit and just make sure that we're looking at this in a timely manner so that we don't have these situations, because we know how important, you know, this is tree palm and shrub pruning, but there could be some other services that are much more critical to the district and to go several months and laps without a contract and not being able to get services to our schools could be detrimental in many ways.

And Mr. Chair, so we just implemented Bonfire actually not that many years ago. Before that it was all paper. That's what I was afraid of. And we have looked into Ariba and other options, but frankly they're very expensive. So we're making do with Bonfire and it's much better than what we used to have.

Thank you, any further question or comments? Yes, Dr. Bendos Mendigo.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all. I'm so glad to see you. I don't think I've seen you in a little bit. Do we have, Mr. Niccolo also, do we have any students being trained in any of the work that we, not that I don't want the individuals that you have chosen the bidders, the awards have been given to. Any of our special schools like Miami Lakes or Dorsey, do we have any coursework where we train the students?

Yeah, through the chair, absolutely, Dr. Benchos-Manigault. Thank you for asking. We have our colleges are robust, and as a matter of fact, we've hired several applicants through our college program to work directly in maintenance. So it is working. We do have an apprentice program, and it's working very well so far. So we're looking forward to continuing that. Thank you for the question. Thank you. Follow up, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, ma'am. I think we should... do a little more advertising because this is good pay. These that we have awarded the bids to through any source. In certain communities they have what is called a weekly. If we can do something with that, Mr. Niccolo and others, I would appreciate it because the work is so needed and we might have an opportunity to share good news with some of the people in our communities. Understood. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. And thank you for bringing that up. That's something I've actually spoken with our region about. We have our neighborhood landscapers that are hardworking out there and sometimes working right across the street of our schools, right? And one of the things that we've been talking about is how can we empower our principals to be able to contract some of those, especially through the beautification item that I brought a couple years ago, and really focusing on bringing in our community to have the opportunities. So I guess those are great conversations to keep on having. I'm actually gonna be having a fair for small businesses in HML in the coming months where we'll be able to talk to a lot of the folks in Northwest aid and provide them information on how to best work with our district. Cause like you said, these are good paying opportunities that we can be reinvesting right into our community. Our students, their fathers, their grandfathers, their grandmothers that are out there doing all these jobs, we want to employ them in our district, so great point. Any other questions or comments? Okay, we now move to E144.

E-144 is a rejection of two real estate-related ITNs. In conversation, so we're asking in the recommend for a rejection of both, but for the recreational capital improvement and development program, asking for authority to go out and direct negotiate, given just the the lack of responses and the disorganization of that particular industry. But in conversations with one of the board members, they asked something, and I had no issue with complying, is that if in our direct negotiations, we find that there's actually a large, we might not know about it, but if there's a large market out there, and there are multiple people who do end up being interested, then I have no problem, if that is the case, coming back with a procurement and saying, yes, we don't want this to look like we're doing anything under the table, that we're having a very public procurement. But right now, from where we sit, that seems an unfeasible position. So we're asking for an opportunity to direct negotiate to get these projects actually done. But if the case that we're wrong and that there is a very large, expansive market that does actually want to build specifically recreational units, then I have no problem in coming back with a public procurement for that. Any questions or comments?

Thank you.

Through the chair. I think this is such a great concept of using our land. I always, with my municipalities, have been able to really work on some interlocal agreements to have that shared benefit. Our students get a benefit during the day. Community gets a benefit at night and weekends. And everybody wins. And so I just want to say I'm fully supportive of this. And would love, as I mentioned in my briefing, for us to, like there were two schools per district that were listed in the scope of work in the ITN. We could help promote these opportunities, obviously not once they're published, but if we are brought in from the beginning, and I certainly had a couple other sites I'd like to see added to this, which I'll certainly talk to staff on, but the bigger question is how, and for both of the procurements listed here, How do we promote and cultivate potential bidders on everything we go out to bid on?

So, yeah, I think the... Through the chair. Yeah, through the chair. In general terms, we always... We go through the commodity codes that we always do on DemandStar, on the normal way we go out. And anyone who's been used to dealing with governments and municipal business, check it regularly. It's constantly brought up. But... You know, sometimes they're like what we have tried over the last decade to really improve is kind of tilling the soil right before anything ever goes out, so our departments Carl is a good example, he does a great job of going into the Community. and getting people to know, hey, this is coming, right? Look out for this. And then obviously we have OEA who goes out and finds... What's interesting, what we're finding is this isn't just new vendors we're trying to reach. This is really a new process for the district, right? And other than Arthur and Polly Mays, this is really the first time we've released proactively any ITNs. And so, you know... one of the benefits that we have now since we released these the first time is we have a real estate department, right? We have people that we've hired under Mr. Perez. And so one of our plans, especially for that shadow loan, because we're not asking for direct negotiate there, we don't want to set that precedent, right? Instead, we are going to go back out for another ITN. But this time, work with our real estate department Um, on two things, one is to clean up whatever, if there's, there's something in our language, right. That maybe makes it unattractive for us, someone to bid. And can we clean it up there? And secondly. Is there a better way to reach the developer market where we just frankly in the past haven't had to access very often than just the normal process? Because it appears that reading Demand Star is not their thing, right? They're not used to dealing with us either. So since there really is, up until we had a real estate department, there was no one to till that soil. Now we do, right? Now we have an entity that knows how to reach the markets. And so when we reject Shadowlawn and go back out, We'll do all those steps first, and hopefully it'll be much more successful.

Thank you, through the chair, wonderful reflection. And what we need to do, totally agree with. And I think once you, the real estate department says, you know, we are going to start a breakfast series that we're monthly, we're gonna bring developers and we're gonna talk and cultivate and just get to know each other. You know, you've got a ton of assets up here to help you, you know, just steer people to the processes that the system builds. So please, you know, don't forget that you've got other champions here helping you bring all those people in and build this together. Thanks.

And on that issue, that's a great point. This has come up over the years about everyone's scared, and rightfully so, everyone's scared about the cone of silence. That's legitimate. I get scared of the cone of silence too. But just so you know, it is not a breach of the cone of silence to let people know that a bid is out there. So if you see a bid come across your desk, and we notify the board any time anything goes under the cone of silence. So if you see something that comes across your desk and you want people to know, you are not breaching the cone of silence if you just forward them the bid and say, hey, this is something the district is now exploring. So you are allowed to do that. Now, obviously, any contact beyond that, definitely we cannot do. But just informing them it exists is not a breach.

Thank you so much one follow up I did have and I did bring this up during our briefing and I think would be beneficial party to this entire board and to our business community is having an inventory list of those vacant partials and Mr Steiger and I spoke about this not school buildings not you know classrooms, this is a document that we can have as a board here that we can review. and see all the vacant partials that we have across the county. And then together as a board with our municipalities, we can then work on what is the best and most ideal use of those partials throughout our communities, right? I see Mr. Espino about to jump out and this is his level of expertise. So I wanted to throw that out here and get feedback from fellow board members as we're here because I thought that that was an important fact. It's something that people always come up to me and say, well, where does the district have vacant land that we can do stuff with?

mr spino you're recognized yeah i was jumping out of my chair mr chair because because i i had and there was an item on the agenda that ultimately i pulled off i was requested to pull off in february of 24 which facilitated that we don't know what we don't know and whether it's meant for all of us or individually for each board member we do have to have an understanding of of what goes out the end result was that dashboard but that dashboard ultimately is going to require us to go in there individually mine it Essentially put on a developer hat for the development community and put it out there. I think that we have to look very closely at whether we do this on a piecemeal basis or holistically. Because the thing is that one of the things I found in my district, and I'm only speaking for myself, that the right sizing solutions for a couple of my schools are not going to work for the next couple of schools that are looking to consolidate. They're all going to be different. and some land that are vacant throughout districts, I have to be more creative in mind because I don't have that capacity. And so I agree with you that conversation needs to be had. How we get there, whether individually as a board, I think that's the point. Absolutely.

Dr. Gallin, you're recognized?

Yes, through the chair. I recall the item board member Spino proffered and withdrew, and I was actually... pleased that he did at the time. I'm all for us continuing to explore the utilization of available land, but I want to make sure that it's not done in a way that's disrespectful to the board member that's representing that district. And I can only speak for me. I don't suffer disrespect very well. And as we are elected in our respective districts, we know the issues in our districts. We do. I mean, we know what's relevant. For example, I've had conversations and inquiries regarding a particular piece of land in my district. That's a NIMBY neighborhood. Anybody doesn't know what that means? That means not in my backyard. So certain communities and certain neighborhoods, you have to know what the lay of the land is in that particular community. I don't think there's no preclusion from individual board members requesting that information for their respective districts. I just want to make sure that we're very, very careful about having a broad discussion and potentially walking into contemplating decisions that may be perceived as an infringement on that board member who is representing that particular district. And I'm the one that coined the phrase, from Florida City to County Land Road. But I speak about that from a position of advocacy, because when we do start to look at those land contemplations, they're not building a lot of land. It's going to at some point come down to disparate explorations of certain communities and certain districts in certain areas. I think we definitely have to have the conversation. I'm in full support. I actually proffered the initial item myself, Board Member Rojas, Chair Rojas, Board Member Mendinger were on the board when we started to frame the process to have this conversation. But we wanted to be intentional. We wanted to be transparent. And we wanted to be mindful that, you know, it can start to take a life of its own. So I'm excited about us continuing the conversation. but I want us to just be mindful as it relates to how some districts can be disproportionately sought after, sought after, or disproportionately pursued. Same thing, but you know what I'm trying to say. There are some places that we don't have land, but there are other communities that do. And that becomes a parochial issue, and I don't like to be parochial around anything that relates to education. But when it comes to these other things that affects people's lives and neighborhoods and voters and constituents and communities that have perceptions that are real relative to, I'll just say it, gentrification, certain areas that I can look at right now, and I don't want to get on that soapbox, but there are certain areas in this community, Dr. Bendros-Meningar, they couldn't give away land. Right? They couldn't give it away. Biscayne Boulevard, for example, to tell someone they saw your relative on Biscayne Boulevard, that's an insult. Right now, that's a badge of pride if you can afford to live on Biscayne Boulevard or walk down that block. So I just want to be mindful of that, and we will continue to have that conversation. I know the superintendent has started that workshop, and I know Board Member Espino, who chairs the facility committee, is doing a great job in doing that. It perks my attention when we start to look at these kind of dynamics through the chair. Thank you.

Thank you, no, and I concur with you. I mean, that's why we're elected in our own districts, right, by the people to represent those within our own communities. I have Dr. Benjos Bendominigo, and then we'll go to Mr. Geller.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. Gallin, for reminding some, but just having a conversation with others. You are absolutely right. For the last two weekends, I have been in meetings with, with real estate brokers and builders. And it was really, really, really to move it forward. One of them said, well, she grew up in that neighborhood. Thank you, Dr. Gallin. I did, and I do visit it. I do know what's going on. But sometimes the builders and the contractors, I should say, are sent, as you use the word, and it's true. We know about gentrification. We know it well. But I always ask the question, well, who sent you? And there are, what, nine of us? You all be careful. They call your name. And I want to make sure that people understand, as my seatmate said, we ran for these seats and blessed to be winners of these seats. So please don't, through the chair, send anyone to District 2 and not think that this board member is not going to speak up. I grew up in District 2. As Dr. Gallin said, I know District 2. So it's really good for all of us to be hearing this because we are aware of what goes on in the neighborhoods that we were elected to serve. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much. Mr. Geller, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, very briefly. I certainly do agree with the points Dr. Gallin made about board members knowing their districts and having some input. and being consulted and everything else he said about that. But I do want to circle back to what Board Member Espino said. He posed the question, do we want to do this piecemeal or do we want to do it holistically? Well, to me, that question's almost a no-brainer. We want to do it holistically, and I just want to express both to my colleagues and to the staff, to the superintendent and his team, that it would be great if we could. I understand there's some work being done, and I don't wanna disrespect any of the work that's underway, but holistically is the way to go. Let's move forward on this so we can not come up an item at a time as it happens to strike us. I think that was part of the thrust of what Board Member Santos was saying as well, is just let's try to have some comprehensive approach to criteria where this makes sense, and then, as was pointed out again by my friend and colleague, Dr. Bendros-Mendigo, where it doesn't make sense. And if we develop that kind of criteria, we should, with deference to Mr. Steiger's point that it doesn't violate the cone of silence to tell somebody there's a solicitation out there, and I trust our attorney, if he disagreed with that, would have jumped in, Mr. Steiger, and he did not, so I'll take it that it's probably fine. But we shouldn't be in the position of trying to push out individual opportunities to individual people out there. That's something that should be done in a coordinated way pursuant to considered policy criteria, where's a yes, where's a no, where's a maybe, and it should be pushed out more aggressively district-wide, county-wide, and I'm simply saying if that process is underway, continue it, but Board Member Espino, to me, it's a good question, but my answer is a simple, straightforward one. Thank you, thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Do we have any further questions or comments? Okay, we now move to E145, Mr. Steiger.

E145 is the moving forward of an individual project, an unsolicited proposal at Ruth Owens Crusade. Questions or comments? All right, thank you. E201. E201 is our monthly grants and donations acceptance.

Any questions or comments? No, thank you as always to our Grants Department and the incredible work they do in finding these dollars for our schools. We now move to Mr. Harvey, G3.

Yes, did he take a vote?

Oh, I'm sorry, sorry. The E items have now been discussed. Can we now take a move? All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you. We now, our next order of business is the G items. Can we please move the G items to the floor? All in favor? All right, thank you, Mr. Harvey. That's why we have you here. You keep us on check, so I appreciate you.

Thank you, thank you, sir, thank you. G3 is initial reading, amendments to policy 6424, purchasing cards and travel cards, 6550, travel and per diem, and 6610, internal accounts. These proposed amendments are being introduced pursuant to item H2 at the January 2024 meeting introduced by Chair Rojas. which directed the superintendent to upon receive the final report from the Office of Inspector General and Chief Auditor to make any policy revisions and recommendations as appropriate. The OIG issued its final report on May of 2025 recommending purchasing card and travel approval policy updates. There was also SAP Concur, which is being implemented. And so pursuant to these initiatives, we're bringing these policy amendments. And if there are any additional questions regarding them, I'd be happy to answer them. They also conform certain statutory requirements as well as requirements from the Red Book into the policy. So if there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you.

Okay, I have Ms. Santos, and then I have Ms. Rojas.

Thank you so much, and thank you so much, Chair Rojas, for bringing the items that have gotten us to some of these important updates. These policies, well, one, I want to say thank you to the administration for moving us into a much better system, a 21st century system. I know we have our quirks to work out with it still, but SAP Concur being a an online traceable approval system that tracks everything. Everything from object codes to program codes to requested date to approver is tracked electronically through that system. However, these policies continue to reference Form 5707, which are PDF outdated systems. can the administration please share the logic for why we should move into 21st century systems to get rid of old, antiquated systems, not to build on them? So can you explain the logic for why we continue to have these PDF forms now attached that are duplicative to the fields that are submitted in SAP Concur?

Sure, Mr. Chair, I can try to take that question. So when we... We're implementing concurrence still. One of the big focuses was on increased accountability, so making sure that we had a system that everyone was able to easily track and audit, and nothing was paper-based, and everyone was held fully accountable for every purchase. taking away that I agree that there's now way and way better and far more accountability on the back end, which we didn't used to have. But in nowhere in the IG's report, nowhere in any of the multiple audits we received on the subject of P cards over the last two years, where does it ever recommended that we make it, that we take away a A limit I an opportunity for us. To have accountability on the front end right, so I agree that it makes the current process where you have to pre authorized and that's what we're talking about is a pre authorization form so. There's nothing, having to pre-authorize the form is an additional step, especially since now there is an electronic approval after the fact. However, one of the goals of the implementation was to rebuild public confidence that we had a system that that had complete accountability all the way through. And the idea of removing an accountability step on the front end, while it is a tedious thing, while it is an extra step, the idea of removing it didn't feel right, especially when we did implementation. And still today, I'm not sure I can support taking that away. Even though I agree, it is an extra step and does slightly slow down the entire process.

through the chair, thanks for explaining that. You also built out an SAP concurred travel module, and that travel module has pre-authorization built in in the 21st century system. There's nothing that prevents us from building out the pre-authorization, which I agree with you, is important and should exist into that approval workflow in the system, as opposed to this PDF that is cumbersome, often doesn't work that is often if we're being honest filled out after the fact anyway when people are submitting their uh their reconciliation because there is no time stamp on it if you did it in sap as a as a pre-authorization you would actually have a time stamp on it and you would actually have better accountability to show that it was indeed approved before it was purchased so that is my request why why didn't we build that pre-authorization module into the workflow

Well, first off, let me say I hope that everyone is doing their pre-authorization forms prior to purchase. That is our assumption.

You have no way of checking that, but you could through the 21st century system through the chair.

But secondly, one of the goals of that particular implementation was speed, making sure that it got up and running as fast as possible. Adding that extra step, as you saw with travel, the travel system took a far, far longer time to get done because we were changing the process instead of just making it electric. So it is very possible that that can be an enhancement moving forward. In fact, in the back of my head, I know that I have to implement something that Mr. Alonzo brought up during implementation, which is instead of individually checking and having auditors check on the back end for how you're spending it, a lot of this can be done through AI. right so you know that's another conversation is how can ai kind of replace humans in a lot of our checking right now i check every single purchase right every single purchase made um uh by board members and by like cabinet it all comes through me and mr bueno um so i agree ai would would alleviate at least my time, Minister Bueno's time, and certainly it would be hopefully cheaper, but there is a cost, and the cost of implementing it at this moment just isn't the priority. So I agree, there's multiple upgrades to the p-card system that I would like to see implemented over the coming years. Yours is one of them. And even potentially rethinking exactly how the pre-authorization works. I agree with it. It's just it wasn't the goal of the implementation when it was being implemented. That was speed and accountability. So...

i think that there will be upgrades moving forward i just don't i can't promise the board when that's going to happen thank you through the chair i i hope that the way that you figured it out for travel you can build it in it's a safer system it's a more accurate system and it saves exponential hours to all the people who have to fill out those forms in a very antiquated manner thanks

Thank you so much. Mr. Bruno, did you have some follow-up that you wanted to provide?

Through the chair, we will comply with the wishes of the board. I would, and everyone, like my colleague said, needs to be doing that pre-authorization beforehand, but understand that the people that would be approving those for school sites and for other offices may not necessarily be waiting by their phones for that authorization. And sometimes that credit card charge needs to take place. Once again, I hear it loud and clear. We should be doing it pre-authorized. I'll just leave it at that. Thank you.

Through the chair, you chose to add, so I will add, too, if that's allowed, Mr. Chair. You mentioned that people may not be sitting by their phones. Your current system, Form 5707, is a printout that they have to have and go manually type in GL codes, program codes, signatures, dates. So... thank you for helping me make my argument, that at school sites, they would be really helped and served by being able to not have to be uploading PDFs, downloading PDFs, signing PDFs, in some cases, printing those papers out, signing them, scanning them, putting them back in, but rather they, as you said, if they're out and about, could authorize from their phone could authorize from their computer could authorize in person. It really this is about moving us into the 21st century. I know that this district is moving in that direction and this is simply because the policy came up and because we've had these conversations on an ongoing basis and because we have a new system, I'm requesting that we implement it to its fullest.

Through the chair, real quickly, two different forms that we're talking about, Mrs. Santos, 57, and the preauthorization. I hear you with the travel, and I'm there with you. I was talking about the preauthorization on the credit card itself. So in order, that preauthorization would need to get approved prior to that purchase being made. That's all I'm saying. And sometimes those schools need to make that purchase immediately. If it's done through Concur and only through Concur, there will be a much more lagging time, in my humble opinion.

All right, so we've identified we need some modernization, and we'll continue to work through that. Chair Rojas, I think you had a question.

I want to give you an opportunity to speak as well. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. No, I have a comment, just a comment. I want to take this opportunity to thank our counsel, Mr. Harvey, for visiting. being so efficient, always following up accordingly, although I brought this to the board in 2024, here we are, and he has followed up accordingly based on the recommendation from the Office of the Inspector General and from the report that came from our auditor's office. This is extremely important and vital that we put into policy. If it's not in policy, we can talk away forever, it doesn't matter. It's not meaningful. So once it's in policy, then it makes all the difference in the world. So thank you very much, Mr. General Counsel, sir. I really appreciate it very much so. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions or comments? All right. With no further questions or comments, all the G items have now been discussed. We'll now take a motion to recommend them to the board meeting. All in favor? Aye. All right. The next order of business is our H items. Can we move those to the floor? Second. All in favor? Our first item is H-12 by our board chair, Ms. Maritere Rojas.

Thank you very much, sir. And my item here, H-12, is... is the State of Florida Auditor General Audit Findings, and I'm gonna be brief. I received a copy of the State of Florida Auditor General Audit Findings, and as your chair, I was offered the opportunity to meet with them and speak with them regarding the findings that had been found. Overall, it was a pretty good audit. As a matter of fact, there were six findings in lieu of the previous time where we had nine findings. So the administration had addressed some of the issues from prior times, and they were addressing also a response, the management response to the auditor's recommendations. All of the findings are important to address. However, there were like three of them that I was very concerned about because as we all know, safety and security and the well-being of our children and of our stakeholders and all those that we represent is really the number one priority for this board. And there was one finding that did concern me, but I know management has followed up accordingly with a very viable response, and I think that it will take care of the situation. I did include in this report a link so that anyone that wants to follow up accordingly on all the six different areas that were identified can do so. What is proposed in the agenda item in front of you is for the superintendent to be able to provide an update to the board of the corrective actions that have been finalized, including a review and also a revision, if applicable, of school board policies procedures by June 3rd, 2026 date. And I also wanted to Just go over very, very briefly the findings, the six findings that were noted. This was based on the operational audit. The first one had to do with one Board Member Santos asked about earlier. Those are the district records. Number two was a finding that was the district schools did not always conduct the required severe weather natural disaster and hazardous material or reunification emergency drills. The third one was a district records needed to address more so the district threat assessment teams in a timely fashion as required by the state. And number four was required background screenings to be a little bit more timely Number five, district records need to document district school employees and school officers as completed and required by the ethical conduct training that is given. And the last one is finding number six, and that one was that district controls over provider services and related payments could be enhanced. And so I thank The superintendent and his team for following up accordingly for ensuring the state that corrective action is going to be followed up on I just simply in my again the action proposed want to make sure. that it's clearly articulated via this board item that the school board of Miami-Dade County, Florida direct the superintendent of schools to submit to the board by June 3rd, 2026, an update of corrective actions finalized, including a review and or revision of applicable school board policies and or procedures in response to the audit findings of the State of Florida Auditor General. That's the item. Thank you very much, sir.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I'll now open it up for any questions or comments from fellow board members. We'll start with you, Dr. Gallin, and then Ms. Blanco.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to first and foremost commend Chair Rojas for this item. I think it's always important when we have some findings or some level of engagement with the state that we demonstrate as a board that we're proactive in responding to those and providing the appropriate oversight. Because what we've seen across the state, and quite frankly, across the nation, legislative elected bodies are to provide oversight. And I'm glad that we're being proactive in doing this, and at the appropriate time, I want to be a co-sponsor. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Dr. Gallin. Ms. Blanco, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Following Dr. Gallin, Chair Rojas, I wanted to thank you as well because as I went over the OIG's report, my first thought was I need to know what we're going to do to rectify this. And within a week or so, your item came in, and I thought, okay, great. We're addressing it through an H item, which will allow for all of us to get an update because while I trust that the superintendent will do those things, we want to make sure that we know and we're aware of what's going on. I did want to bring up finding three. I have been consistently asking what we're doing when it comes to the visits with security and some of the common things that kept coming up and wanting to know what we were going to do to address that. And this almost made me wonder, do I need to bring an H item about that? But one of the things, and I think that's been improved upon based on the last ones we found, was that the schools weren't always able to provide the threat management team. And so as I'm reading Finding Three, I'm like, oh, maybe that's why we couldn't provide it because maybe not everybody was getting trained on time. I don't know. And I think what I was told is paperwork wasn't always there, right? But it just seemed like a little bit of a common theme on something that I've seen. And so I think you... Madam Chair for bringing this forward because I think we all need to know what it is that's happening and moving forward we'll probably need to be more proactive as well to make sure we get some good responses. So at the appropriate time I'd like to cosponsor.

Thank you. I think we now have Board Member Colucci and then we'll go to Board Member Geller.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to thank Madam Chair for this item. I think it's proactive. I believe that we are responsible to be in that position of being proactive, not reactive. So I'm very, very intrigued of how we're going to address these issues. So thank you, Madam Chair. And at the appropriate time, I'd like to be a co-sponsor.

Thank you so much. Mr. Geller, you're recognized. Thank you.

I want to echo the words of my colleague, Board Member Blanco. This is a great item. Thank you, Madam Chair. At appropriate time, I'd also like to co-sponsor. Thank you.

Okay, with no further Board Members to speak, I want to thank you as well, Madam Chair. As you said, it's great to see that we've gone from eight to six, but it does concern me that four out of... Nine to six. From nine to six. But it does concern me that four out of the six are around safety, and that is concerning. Absolutely. I'm looking forward to report. I didn't want to go into a back and forth on questions because I want to give staff the appropriate time to review this, but as Board Member Blanco has said, you know, I have brought up some concerns around some of these points in the past, and I'm really looking forward to hearing from staff on how it is that we're going to move forward because these are learning exercises, right? This is what we do. We go through these tests to make sure that we are prepared and that we adjust in the areas that we need to. Before I move on to the next item, Mr. Superintendent, did you have some comments that you wanted to share? I see you there, so I want to give you an opportunity to share any feedback.

Yes, thank you, sir. It's just addressing Ms. Blanco. So I just wanted to mention, and I know the finding is there, so we will attend to it, but I can assure you, as a larger school district, as a large... That just threw me off. So as the largest school district in the state of Florida, we were one of the ones involved in the threat management training task force that was created. So we did have a challenge in making sure that we trained everybody, but I can tell you that we were extremely active in making sure that our threat management teams have been trained and that we're at every single training session. Timing has been a little bit complicated at first, but we've made major improvements in this, I can tell you. And this is about the training aspect, right? And making sure, because there's a requirement that we have district and then we have all these other levels. So I just wanted to mention that. That does not take away from the fact that the finding is there. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right, thank you, Mr. Superintendent, for your update on that. Are there any other speakers? With none, we'll now take a vote for co-sponsors. Who would like to be a co-sponsor? All those in favor? All right, we now move to take a motion to recommend H-12 to the board meeting of February 11th. Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay, our next board item is H-15, presented by Mr. Danny Espino.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, colleagues. Thank you for the opportunity to present this item for you. I appreciate the prefatory comments during the audit. I mean, it just shows the continued focus and responsibility that this board has paid to this item, which is all about our kids' safety. This item's been before us in different ways before. We authorized this new program when it came to Florida law. We supported the suspension when our new sheriff came in and I wanted to thank her for her diligence on it with everything that she had to do to come up to speed on launching a new department, a new agency really as a former department of the county. This is something that straddled both the prior administration of that department and now her supervision of that agency. I appreciate her stepping in and bringing to light a deficiency in the operations that was beyond our control We discussed today the audit that we commissioned, which also helped bring some findings, which would ultimately result in, I think, a better program, not only just for ourselves, but wherever red light, not red light, forgive me, but bus infraction detection systems are implemented throughout the state. We came back in October and said, hey, listen, let's see what we can do to address what was a significant deficiency, which is an appeal process to ensure that our violators got due process as required by law. And so at that time, that item essentially said, let's look at, knowing that there's moving parts of this, let's look at definitively one, which is can DOA look at the backlog of violations? And if it can, can it resolve it within the amount of time we need to do it? And if it can, Can it also be a solution to reengage in a reactivation of the program? We have received response from our attorney saying, obviously subject to further execution of agreements, that DOA has the bandwidth to address the backlog and DOA can administratively address forward violations. We've had representations from bus patrol that they will assist in covering the costs associated with those efforts as well as any that may be required. I also think that we've had the opportunity to look at these issues that arose as a result of the audit and incorporate them into ways to improve the system. We've received correspondence. This item simply takes and moves the ball the next step. I appreciate the effort by the attorneys to work with DOA to get to a point, but now we have to ask them to bring an item back to adjudicate all outstanding and contested bus school infractions in compliance with 316. I also want to say one thing. I appreciate Board Member Gallin's, Dr. Gallin's comments during this item in October, because as a result of it, in my conversation with Bus Patrol, which still needs to be fleshed out through the administration, you instigated the fact that they proffered a favored nation status, which essentially says if there's another district that gets better financial terms than what we have, we benefit from that too. And given our financial bandwidth, that should be the case. So I appreciate that contribution, and that still needs to be worked out. But ultimately, the item proposes several action items. As I mentioned, negotiate a memorandum of understanding with DOA to adjudicate all outstanding contested school bus infractions pursuant to statute. Negotiate and come back to us with a revised agreement with bus patrol, including the most favored nation protection, vendor funding, hearing support, audit rights, financial transparency, statutory compliance safeguards, and I think we get in here also adequate notice to all parties involved, however their matter is adjudicated, even dismissal. And then approach our sheriff and definitively resolve an interlocal agreement with her office, giving her the assurances that she needs and the department and the agency needs to continue being the adjudicatory, the enforcement arm of this, providing her all the information. Establish a due process, including with ADA accommodations, establish audit, financial controls, seek board approval as necessary, and report back in the next fiscal government meeting within 60 days. We've had this opportunity, we had this program, it was suspended in April, the law changed in July. It was October when we brought this back, and now we're in February. I don't think that there's any doubt in anyone's mind that this system did what it did, did what it was supposed to do, because the conversation around our entire county about what has to happen around buses was prevalent. I know, because it was in the news. And I will tell you that having been recently passed around when I stop behind a bus, there's still a long way to go to ensure our children's safety. This is about simply dealing with the procedural issues to make sure that we have a legally sufficient, a auditorily sufficient program that not only does what it's supposed to do, but does so in compliance with the law and with our own standards of how we conduct business with our public. That's the item, and I'm happy to open to questions.

Thank you so much, Board Member Ospino. When I open up for questions in the first hand, I see is Dr. Gallin.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the Chair, I want to first commend Board Member Ospino for his leadership and his diligence in trying to navigate this very, very challenging issue that we face. it's been a conundrum, it's been somewhat of an albatross, and at some point we have to make some decisive action to move forward. It's not only an albatross on the district, it's an albatross on the individuals in the community who are still lingering with this over their head. I think his actions are very, very pragmatic. I would proffer some amendments that are to be contemplated. I just had some questions My concern was that we resolve the law enforcement review process, and I think you've covered that in your recommend. We need to reconcile the issue to process outstanding violations. I think that is reflected in your recommended language. I know we have to be very, very clear about clearly established and delineated formal notification process for contested tickets. Through the chair, I'm unapologetic to say this. Sometimes the stars or karma or whatever it is lines up. I can attest, no pun intended, to some of the deficiencies of the program. I was cited. I'm one of the individuals that got a ticket. had very challenging challenges to to dispose of it or contested. And at some point I just paid it. I paid it. So there is some some lingering sentiments of disparity. But I value my driver's license. I have to move around and I can't be constrained by some of the inefficiencies at the time. I pray that this becomes a lesson learned as it relates to this particular issue. And I would also be remiss if I did not acknowledge once again Mr. John Goodman and his team. Am I able to say Ms. Avara? OK, thank you. I'll say this parenthetically so you'll understand where that spirit comes from. I'm always impressed with people who are able to own and articulate their work. That's just a personal thing for me. When a person you know who's the author of the work and who really has been vested in it. So that was just very impressive for me. It's easy to follow a script, but when you can think on your feet because you know it, that's impressive. The formal notification process, I think you've covered that. So specific, specific language I would like to see incorporated. And I'm unapologetic about it. As we go through this whole notion and recommend 2A, You use the language, a revised agreement with bus patrol, including but not limited to most favored nation, et cetera. I want to be very, very explicit. And I asked through the chair at one of the committee meetings, Mr. Luis Diaz, and he was very wise to assume that I knew the answer. I say, if I told you that we're not getting the best deal, would you believe me? He said, well, if you're asking, I'm sure you know. So I feel kind of cheated as it relates to the fact that as the third largest school district, as the largest in the state of Florida, that we're leaving money on the table. This is not about show friends. This is about show business. And to the extent that we're leaving money on the table, I think that's problematic for me. I'm just going to be upfront. I can't support an amended agreement if it does not have some modifications that bring us a better split in the revenue. And I want to say this parenthetically. Right now, because of this scenario, I can like people, but I'm going to call balls and strikes. We're leaving in excess of $10 million on the table. And this is not about money, but there is a revenue proposition attached to this partnership. So those citations that have not been disposed of and potentially won't be, I think that's north of $10 million. $10 million. So whether it's to bus patrol, to us, we can ill afford to leave money on the table. So I think we're going to have to make up some ground as it relates to our subsequent negotiations, so I want to be very, very explicit as it relates to how we frame that. Our revised agreement makes significant adjustments to the split that currently is here, and I think that's one of the, through the chair, that's one of the lessons of piggybacking. That's one of the lessons of piggybacking. When you piggyback, very often you assume the terms and conditions of the initial upon who you're piggybacking. And my late father would say in life, you don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate. So I don't wanna be restricted by what another district negotiated, oh well too swell. So when we do a piggybacking without any significant modifications, we assume the terms and I believe we can get better terms and that's a contention for me. So negotiate an improved rate that the district gets in the split to be increased significantly. I recommend you stipulate a date for this action to come back to the board. And as a fiduciary, as the chair indicated, as a representative of the ABAC and with the work that the audit department has done, that we incorporate the relevant findings and recommendations in any subsequent agreement that is amended relative to this. I understand what we have in the report. but if it's not in a contractual language, I think it's very, very important. So negotiate an improved rate that the district gets in the split, stipulate a date that this comes back so it's not open-ended, and incorporate the findings in the audit report as relevant and appropriate. My other recommendations, I do believe that you covered in your language But I think we need to be somewhat explicit. And my last point, and it's no secret, it's in the media today. I'm through the chair and I'm saying this respectfully. You know, Dr. Stanton would always say, you know, if somebody told you something, you go to the person that they say said it. You know, my dad would say, go confirm and verify. I think that was Ronald Reagan. Who said that? Ronald Reagan? Ronald Reagan. Trust but verify. You know, so there's been a lot said about a lot of things on who's on board and who's supporting and The sheriff is on board, and I hear what you're saying, but I need data to support that. Is it in writing? Do we have something executed? And if we don't, no, because we get embarrassed. And I'm going to say this. Today, we got embarrassed. I say that with people I respect and love, we got embarrassed. And we cannot be embarrassed moving forward because the confidence that we need from this community is critically important. So we can't represent anything of this magnitude. And the lesson learned is that now it's in the media a dispute with a trusted partner, a committed partner, And I'm sure the superintendent is addressing that. So that goes to the heart, board member Espino, to recommend to be an updated and executed into local agreement. I want it executed. So it's not going to be what someone said, what we believe, what we feel. We need something signed on a dotted line before we move forward with the restoration of this program. So those are some of the stipulations. I mean, my recommendations for amendment to 3, but in 2B, updated and executed. The execution of that is going to be critically important because it's been a lot said. But at the end of the day, when the rubber meets the road, you get an email 11 o'clock at night saying something different. And then you read it later on that it's something different. And everything is done in good faith. But at the end of the day, this board has to wear that. And I know the superintendent takes that very seriously. And those are my recommendations. So at the appropriate time, if you accept them, I would like to have them incorporated into this moving forward. And a time certain for this through the chair. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much, Dr. Gallin, and I'm gonna give you an opportunity now to speak, but I agree with you. We need answers on this board because I too was embarrassed yesterday when I got a call from the Miami Herald about this and knowing that I was the chair of this committee and that if I had an interlocal agreement that I had seen from the sheriff's office, And we had received the memo that said we did have something in the works and we didn't. From what I read in the paper I haven't personally spoken to the sheriff and and that's not my duty that's why we have staff here, we have a building full of people as my seatmate just shared. So i'd like an answer as to what's going on, because one of my biggest things since day one. I support this program. I've been on that bus as cars have driven by it and just taken that stop sign. I was personally sitting in a seat in Hialeah Gardens when a car just flew by the bus while the stop sign was out. So we need a system put in place. But I've been saying since the very beginning, we have to work with the sheriff. They're the ones that have the jurisdiction out in the roadways across our county. Why are we here months later still without an answer from the sheriff? Mr. Superintendent?

Sure. Let me just say, I own this one. I own it 100%. I've had a lot of communication with the sheriff, and she's been exceptional. What happened was, and I'm not going to go back and forth, what I failed to do is the last conversation I had with her, and I spoke to my folks, we needed an inter-local agreement. When I spoke to her, I did not speak to her about that. So what I should have done is gone back and said, Sheriff, we need an ILA. So I called her yesterday. I apologized. I revised the memo that was sent to the board originally, immediately removed that paragraph. Nothing has been done here intentionally to reflect anyone Anything for our purpose or for our gain. That's not the way I operate. It was a miscommunication. I Did not go back to her Staff assumed in my conversation was staffed that that was the case. It was not the case We did not have any written agreement with the sheriff, but I had had plenty of conversations. Where were we? What were the requirements? One of the things she told me, we cannot move forward without having a DOA, intergovernmental agreement. That was clear that she informed me, but I want to tell you again, right? Communication in life is everything, and when you fail at that, look what happens. Folks assume that it was intentional, that you're hiding something. I can tell you right now that was not the case. I own it for not going back to her and saying, my legal team is telling me that we need a written ILA. And, I mean, I don't know what else to do, but to be as honest, because I do not want to place the board in a situation that does not trust me. administration and what we do it was one of my mistakes and unfortunately um came out on the newspaper but i don't want to embarrass any one of you i act as honestly as i can and i own this one nobody else does i own it and um I apologize to the board for reflecting this, but I'm very confident that we will be able to work with the sheriff and work successfully to do what we need to do.

thank you thank you mr chair now i thank you for taking the responsibility but you also have a team here this item came in october to this board when a board member espino brought it and we gave the directive we were ready to move forward and i think we've done a great job with doa and the sheriff was that pending item there so i'm hoping that now once again we can finalize this and we can schedule a meeting and that staff can sit down with staff legal with legal and everybody be at the table and not have a back and forth of he said, she said, and more of a definitive answer, because I think the community deserves it. So I just wanted to make sure that we cleared that up.

Mr. Alonso, Mr. Chair, that is clear. That is clear, and we cannot misstep on this one moving forward. Okay.

I'm gonna open up for, and then I have a follow up, but Board Member Santos, and then any other board members that wanna speak.

Thank you so much. Two brief questions. The first one is under this item, or generally with where we are with things right now, in the audit there was a mention around clarity around 60 days versus 30 days moving forward, and on the auto conversion, let's say, of NOVs to UTCs. So my question is where do we currently stand today on everyone who has an out, I know this item really addresses moving forward, making sure we've got really clear systems. I'm fully in support of that. But because the G item was removed, I kind of have to ask it here about where, what is going to happen to all of the people who had an outstanding NOV or UTC or NOVs that will convert to UTCs?

Through the chair, Mrs. Santos, I'm gonna try to take a stab at that. And I'm gonna speak in numbers instead of NOVs and UT, okay. So there's approximately right now about 8,000 plus citations that the individual has contested, okay? Those 8,000 plus are sitting right now that are going to hopefully in the very near future, once we get everything on track, will be heard by either DOA and there's a percentage, there's about maybe I think about 1,500 that will need to be heard by the county courts, okay? There will be a determination on whether A, they're guilty of the infraction or not guilty of the infraction. Then that's the 8,000 that you were asking about. There's also another number out there of 43,000 plus. Those 43,000 plus, we have not had any direction from the board as to what to do with those. We became aware of those in a meeting with Mr. Harvey, myself, and representatives of bus patrol. So we have not dwelled into those 43,000. There's a lot of talking about it, but we have not looked into it. Those 43,000 basically have not elected to either contest, pay, and basically have ignored that citation or NOV. I get the terms confused, but they have ignored what they're supposed to do. So there's approximately 43,000 out there.

Thank you. Through the chair, again, I know this item doesn't address this, but it is my general request that every possible thought be given to clearing, dismissing, and not reopening a can of worms with wherever possible for community members who, for whatever reason, have something pending. Since we are now, thanks to this item and moving forward, hopefully going to land in a really good place about how we move forward. And the second question, thank you for answering that, was for the maker of the item. Given the Communications we've received Recommend to a currently says sorry to be Currently says an updated interlocal revised agreement. I think the the The emails we received and the communications clearly indicate from the sheriff's perspective there. There is no interlocal so it's not a updated or revised, it is really to negotiate in an agreement period. And so I would have a friendly amendment to just share, negotiate an agreement with the Miami-Dade Sheriff's Office to clear that up.

Just a quick clarification through the chair. I know board member Santos asked a very important question relative to the 43,000. I think there is some provision relative to our inability to even collect on those. I think there's an expiration date to that. So for the record, I think by default, some of those will potentially fall to the wayside, but can we get clarification on that? And secondly, I, I always find some level of discomfort to the extent that the district, and here what Mr. Bueno was saying, unapologetic about this this is turnkey we don't this is not our space to have to manage the intricacies of this particular program so although we want to show to some resolution when i hire the man to do my pool i'm not going to ask him how much salt needs to be in there clean the pool you make adjustments and you you own it so to the extent that some of these resolution issues that's not what i think the i don't want to as a board member to be in the decision-making process of having to say yay or nay to certain tickets or things of that nature. So if someone can speak to the expiration provision that will resolve that pursuant to what the statute provides for, that will be very important to have for the record. Because I don't want to create the narrative that we are going to either deal with those, Board Member Santos, through the chair, or that we have control to deal with those through the chair. Thank you. I just want that clarified what the rule is for the record.

Thank you. I think we do have a follow-up. Mr. Goodman, would you answer or do you want your staff to?

No, I'll answer. No, I'll answer. Again, I put a lot of effort into this audit as well. But we think, yeah.

We got to put a little humor into it, right? Yes. So thank you, Mr. Goodman, for being such a good player.

So we think that probably a majority of the 43,000 NOVs that were not paid or contested have probably lapsed based on the statute of limitations. But we're going to need legal to look into that and give us a more definitive answer on that.

Thank you so much. But I mean, to Dr. Gallin's point, think this board does not want to be in the business of verifying what tickets should be given what shouldn't be given i think that's something we should allow the sheriff together with the uh operator of the system to decide um i don't think i mean at least i don't want to be in the business of saying which tickets we should be enforcing or not as a board member um Dr. Gallant, before I move to the next, any follow-up on that, or are you okay with that answer?

Through the chair, I was okay with it. I just wanted to be clear about that because people may have the notion, with Board Member Santos' great question, the 43,000, those may be inconsequential. They may be rendered moot pursuant to statute.

Ms. Santos, any further questions before I move on? Okay, Board Member Rojas, you're recognized.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

And first and foremost, I want to say safety and security and the well-being of our children is a top priority for this entire board. With that said, when it was presented to us as a turnkey, we went accordingly and approved this based on the information that was given. Some situations have come up. recently with issues of some concern and so that's why with some of the friendly amendments that were made by Dr. Gallen make me feel a lot more comfortable because we wouldn't be able to restart anything at this time until we have an amended agreement and until everything is crystal clear, which I'm so obsessed on making sure that our community respects us because we have an open and transparent process in everything that we do. in this district. And there should be no questions from anybody in any way, shape, or form. It should be crystal clear everything is being done as it should be and in an ethical manner where there are no questions asked. But I asked this question earlier. where is the due process I had the same numbers I had the 43,000 that didn't pay or didn't contest anything and the statute of limitations I'm not an attorney but I've done a little digging I believe that's done so I do not think that we're going to be able to do anything which would obviously if you If you want to translate that into the dollar amount, it would be significant. I'm not going to ask anyone to give numbers right now. And then I look at the situation. So you have people, still 8,000 of them, those are the ones I asked about earlier today, that are in limbo. They've been waiting and waiting and waiting, and nothing has happened because they haven't had their day in court. Now, we're not in the business. I agree with everybody that we're not in the business of making certain decisions, but I am in the business of due process for everyone I represent. And I believe so are my colleagues on the board. And so therefore, that's an area that's very concerning to me. because these people did do what they were supposed to do. They got the ticket, they didn't agree with it, they challenged it, yet they're still waiting for their day in court. Now, if they go via the DOA, the District of the Administrative Hearings, and they end up having to pay, you've got these people, having to pay a significant amount where you had 43,000 that don't have anything, not a penny because it was dismissed. So we just want, at least I can say, I want fairness and equity across all people that were involved in this particular situation. That's where I'm having a concern about, and the fact that, Mr. Superintendent, I thank you for taking responsibility of the misunderstanding that took place, but I know that you've also shared, even yesterday, when we were at ABAC, you spoke very highly about the sheriff, and she's doing an exemplary job. She sure is. And you said that publicly yesterday. And so we want to continue to have great relationships with the sheriff and with everyone involved in the process, everybody. But we all have to be on the same page. And we have to remember, due process is something that is owed to everyone. We wanna earn the respect of this community, then we have to do what is the right thing. And that's where I stand right now. I do, again, thank the maker of the item for bringing it forth. I know you've been addressing the issue for a while. And I do thank Dr. Gowen for his friendly recommendations, amendments that he made. And I do want, though, to see what is going to happen ultimately with the 8,000 that do not know, you know, that are still in limbo and see what happens with them, but also the 43,000 if they were not notified, then that's something that's also concerning because everyone should be notified of their status one way or another. So those are my areas of concern. I do want to thank Mr. Goodman and his team. I'm putting you equally together, unlike my colleague to the right. But I have to say, Mr. Goodman, she really did hit it out of the ballpark yesterday. And you know I don't say that unless it's gotta be outstanding. But I have to tell you, this is a very complex situation. And I mean, I followed you perfectly in that meeting. And you did speak very eloquently, and you were very succinct in the manner that you made the presentation, and you made a difficult situation a much easier one to understand. so i thank you but mr goodman is great i deal with him all the time directly and without his leadership nothing else would happen and i always say teamwork is what makes the dream work so the entire team kudos to all of you as well and to the members from um all groups bus patrol and everyone else that wants to do uh you know the right thing let's get together everybody and let's get on the same page let's do this correctly so that at the end of the day the winners our children, especially the students that we represent. Thank you. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I believe he wants to say something. Oh, I thought you wanted to say something.

Through the Chair, I was just going to say we've been talking a lot about my team and me and Ms. Sanchez, too, and I've always said we've had the, you know, it's been a great blessing to have Elvira on the team, and I've always said I believe she's the smartest person person in the district, I mean in our office and probably the district, with the exception of maybe the school board itself.

I'll try to be politically correct. I was waiting for Dr. Gallin's response there, but we'll give you a pass there, and we're going to go to Mr. Geller, who's been patiently waiting at the other side, and then Ms. Blanco following after.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'll be very brief. I want to thank Board Member Espino for bringing this item. I think it's exactly what we need. I think we need to be specific. We need to move forward. I think the 60-day timeline that he set is an appropriate timeline for us to get a report back, and I understand that it's possible at that time. We hope everything will be done, but maybe it won't be. We are negotiating with people, but I certainly want to hear back by then if by some chance that happens to be ready in 30 days, that'd be great. But I think that this is an appropriate timeline. I do think that very helpful comments and suggestions for friendly amendments have been offered. Certainly Dr. Gallen had a, as usual, very thorough list. And I think I heard some others from some of our other colleagues. I'm open to anything like that that clarifies. Let's make it a better and more specific piece of legislation. Certainly we need to include that we want those particular audit findings that Mr. Goodman and his staff worked so hard on. But this is a good item. As I think Board Chair said, this is principally about keeping children safe. So it is to me, I don't view it as a revenue source in any way. To me that's If anything incidental, I hope this goes to zero because there are no violators. And so let's move it, let's do so appropriately. Madam Chair, I certainly, you'll find no other person sitting here who agrees with you more about the need for due process for everyone. on everything at all times. I suspect every member of this board feels that way, but I'm glad you articulated it. But this is a good item. I want this program back. I want it to work. Let's do whatever it takes. Let's empower the staff to move forward. And I want to just say, by the way, Mr. Superintendent, you're taking too much of a hit here, you know, for a simple misunderstanding and words You're the head of this organization, but you're not our lawyer, and sometimes staff can get a little bit out ahead of legal. It happens. We have great legal advisors here, but the fact that you were talking with the sheriff and trying to get it done, and there were conversations, and maybe they didn't quite come to fruition as you had hoped or assumed, that's all fine, but... A simple misunderstanding like that, that happens all the time to all of us. There's not blame that should go here. That's just the nature of human interactions. The sheriff is cooperating with us. We're cooperating with the sheriff. DOA is involved. The vendor's involved. Let's just get it done, and no need for you to ... I mean, that's life. But this is a good item, and thank you, Board Member Espino. This moves us forward. That's what we need to do. Let's just move it forward. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Board Member Geller. We next have Board Member Blanco.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, the bad part about going later on is that most of what you've written down from the very beginning has already been said. I don't want to get into the history of this item, but I do know that when we last talked about it, what I said is when we're going to do something, you got to do it right. And I think that's exactly what this item captures. So I thank you. Board Member Espino, even though the language isn't there, and I know Board Member Gallin brought it up, you know, to say incorporate the findings of the audit, I think when you look at your items and you look at the audit, it seems like you were very purposeful and meticulous in ensuring that we did all of that. And so that's my thing, right? If we're going to do something, we do it right, and your item seems to capture all of that. I do want to make a comment because one of the last things I wrote was embarrassed and that was before Mr. Gallen, Dr. Gallen made the comment. But I do think, Dr. Dotris, thank you for your candidness. Thank you for accepting it and owning it. And in my mind, while what Mr. Geller said is true, a true leader That's what they do. They own it. And so I appreciate you doing that, not trying to give an explanation. We do know that things like that happen, and so I do appreciate you owning it. Let me make sure I didn't make a note that someone hasn't said. No, I think that's pretty much everything. I think you captured, I do want to, there's a lot of conversation. I think it's about the 43,000. What I did want to say is I don't know that this is the moment where it needs to be addressed because since we're in suspension, I don't know if that's something that could even be resolved until it's not suspended. I don't know that. That would be the only thing that perhaps is missing, but perhaps we can't address it until we get everything done from this item. And then in moving forward with item... What is it? Considering, right, to move on, maybe at that point that's where we can have the conversation. I think it's a worthy conversation to have It seems to me it might be at that point would be the most appropriate, but I don't know. I'll trust Board Member Espino that you will kind of try to figure it out, and if it's something that can be addressed now, perhaps we can add it. I'm okay with addressing it later if it necessitates a later discussion. And so at the appropriate time, though, I do love the item. I love your thoroughness, and I'm ready to co-sponsor. Thank you.

Okay, well, we have two more board members that want to speak, but I also have the superintendent who's been anxiously trying to say something. Mr. Superintendent, then we have Dr. Bendis-Mendigo, and then Board Member Colucci.

Thank you, Mr. Alonso, and it directly addresses what Ms. Blanco just said. So the Board has been really good, and we may need a little bit more direction. It's not that we're doing the process. It's not that we are operationalizing it. But you folks have helped us pinpoint what needs to be done, especially as it relates to due process. So you directed us to work with the provider and work with the entities to resolve the 8,000 contested. The big question mark right now is the 43,000. We do need, not that we're gonna do it, but I believe that is a pending issue that we need some direction from the board in terms of taking, not taking actions, but working with the provider and with what other entity so that that can be addressed. Otherwise, Ms. Blanco, I feel like you, it will continue to hang and it will continue to be who's addressing it, what are we doing with it? And so I believe it requires some type of directive to us in terms of addressing these and how would you like us to go about it? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right, thank you, Mr. Superintendent. We now go to Dr. Bendos Mendigo and then Board Member Colucci.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I probably am like Member Blanco. You write things down and this smart board just takes over all of your questions. So you just have a few comments. And to our... entire team, of course, our auditor and all of our appointees, but more so the former chair of ABAC, my appointee, Christopher Norwood sent me a message. So he's watching. He's probably one of the smartest people that you'll ever meet. And he'll, yes, I'm getting a nod over here. And he will let you know that, okay? So I want you to know that... where everything that has been said, maybe one or two things that were not said, it's about what might affect this driver's license thing. You don't have to respond. This is my appointee who has said these things, and I trust him. He's watching us, so he probably will ask me when I'm done and I see him or speak with him. He'd probably say, why didn't you tell them what I said? Well, he's my appointee, so I'm doing this. Also, I want to make sure that we speak about the acronyms because we got people watching and listening and And someone said, I think it was one of our smart senior staffers said, I get confused, I get mixed up. Say what it is so that others who send me messages won't be asking me because I might get confused also. But I want you all to know that this was told to me this morning before I got here that this was going to be quite a discussion on this issue. It is important, but I'm glad we took the time, Mr. Chair, to talk about this because it is so important. We deal with so many governmental agencies, but we don't run them, Mr. Superintendent. You're absolutely right. As a leader, you did take ownership, but Mr. Superintendent, putting this over and done, remember most of us were principals. We just go back to the office and have a conversation. please understand that we understand. So we will give directions and make sure that everything is understood by staff and senior staff. And hopefully as we sit and meet here, we will all, we're on the same team. We just have to let everyone know that. And I did not thank the maker of this item. You caused us to be late for lunch, but I'll thank you anyway. And I'm ready to support whenever that time comes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much. And Board Member Carucci.

Thank you. Dr. Gallin, I'll defer to you because it's perhaps something that's related to what was just said. Okay, so I'm not going to say everything over again. I echo the sentiments of my colleagues. I do have to say that the word embarrassed resonated in my mind because this administration is a reflection of the board. And we have to be very, very careful in how we act and we have to be efficient and we have to be expeditious when it comes to matters like this. So that's what I'm going to say and I will leave it at that. I want to thank the maker of the item. It is time to move forward. This has been going on a long time. We need to get everyone in the same room and communicate properly. And as my parents always told me, and they weren't lawyers, get everything in writing. And on that note, I would be happy to co-sponsor at the appropriate time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much. I know Dr. Gallin's gonna summarize everything that was said, but before we summarize, because then we can hopefully call for a vote and go to lunch, I want to also thank the maker of the item, Board Member Spino, This has been lingering all over all of us, right? We were all waiting on this audit. The audit's been completed. Now it's time to move forward, learn from it, and improve. We always knew that it was the safety of our students. That's our number one priority. And I really look forward to seeing this all come back together. The one thing that I would, though, and Dr. Gallin, as you look through the amendments and Board Member Spino is notifications. Notifications to the individuals that currently have pending citations or all the other acronyms that we've talked about something needs to go out as soon as possible to them it's referenced in in in the media that. The provider states that the district never asked for us to send out or for them to send out notifications. Please, administration, explain to them, work together with them so that notifications can be sent out to all these pending violators so that they know where we stand with things. Because it's important to have that communication. And once you communicate with the citizens that we represent, then they don't have to call us at our office and ask us what's going on and why this doesn't get resolved.

um that was the only thing i was going to add there that notification is is important and um i appreciate the board item and look forward to a resolution to this uh very fairly quickly yes um thank you mr chair just want to um kind of clarify some things that were highlighted in the recommended amendment and i want to thank board member spino once again for not only bringing the item but being relatively receptive to the amendments, and I too want to echo the sentiments of the superintendent, sentiments of my colleagues with the superintendent taking ownership. I've been in a number of rooms where people start pointing fingers, but as my colleague said, that's not leadership, and we saw leadership on full display here. And secondly, I want to, in addition to a statement that was made about communication, I think, yes, communication is important, But I think the next iteration of this work must require coordination. It's one thing to talk, but it's another thing to coordinate roles and responsibilities. And if you look at the fulcrum of this audit report, it really highlights persons responsible. Ultimately, who's responsible? The administration, bus patrol, entities outside of the district are responsible. But ultimately, the board is accountable. So as we start to think about those particular issues. I just want to clarify, Board Member Spino, I know Board Member Santos made an excellent point. And unless the attorney says we can amend the ILA or do we need a new one, I just want to clarify that for the record through the chair. Was the ILA expired or do we actually need a new one? I know she made a great point.

Yes, through the chair, the original ILA was signed with the county.

not the sheriff say so we do absolutely we need a new one thank you board member santos that was very important so um a partnership being executed ila with the sheriff's office that was the one that was recommended negotiate an approved rate that the district gets in the split i know board member geller mentioned 60 days board member spino mentioned 60 days I recommend that we don't keep kicking this down the can. At some point, we just got to bring this in for a landing. I don't know through the chair, Mr. Superintendent, would 30 days be overly ambitious for us to get a resolution to this through the chair?

Through the chair, we can try. I can't.

I understand. I understand. But could we make that aspirational that we want to say within 30 days? Sure.

Through the chair. Yes, absolutely. Absolutely.

And right now. And when things through the chair, not to cut you off, when things don't meet the deadline, you all have been great in terms of communicating with the board and say, hey, this was the deadline, but this is what's going on. and we will meet again, I mean next month. So we'll get an update, you can't run and hide, you know, we're gonna be able to bring this up. There's always new business, Board Member Alonso, so. Couldn't we say, hopefully 30 days, but no more than 60?

Well, if I can say,

And right now, with Mr. Harvey's great work, it's about dealing with that one ILA. So I believe it's reasonable. And if not, I don't want to give you an update. I want to tell you that it's resolved. Absolutely. So we'll try really hard to make sure we bring everybody together and resolve this one piece.

Okay. And on specifics on the... Issues in the audit of the bus patrol program, Board Member Spino, I'd probably like us to be a little more explicit, incorporate findings one through seven of the audit report with emphasis on number six regarding the unsent UTCs and other issues as relevant and appropriate. And the reason I'm looking at my, I'm gonna have to write my notes. My staff didn't bring my pad, so I'm kinda typing on my phone. And the last thing I wanna just put out there as they move forward through the chair, and this was not my initial recommendation, my colleague, but I have to say this, any subsequent actions related to the resolution and disposition of this issue should not incur any cost to the district. I just want everybody to understand, this should not incur any cost to the district, unless I'm advised otherwise. through the chair. I didn't bring that up, but I thought that's important. So, you know, we go down resolving this issue. We enter into a contract with somebody to resolve this. And next thing you know, it's 30, 40, $50,000 that comes to the district. My, my position is that the resolution of this issue should not incur any costs to the district because we are already leaving money on the table with the unresolved issues. So that's just a recommendation. You can, I think the due process was in there. So I don't know, Board Member Espino, that's just something I don't know.

Thank you, Dr. Gallin. So Board Member Espino, you want to land this one in?

Yeah, sure. Thank you, everybody, for the feedback, of course. I mean, they often say that a camel is a horse built by committee, but this camel's got longer legs than that. So number one, I'm going to do this. For one, I'm going to have a 1A, which is exactly as it reads. 1B is to simply provide us, within the timeframe specified, a report or analysis on the incurred but not adjudicated violations, that 43,000, because I don't know about you, but I'm not in a position to tell them what to do with it, because I don't know what their standing is. So just to give us, so that'll be 1B. 1A stays the same. 1B, provide a report or analysis on the incurred but not adjudicated violations within the specified timeframe. 2A... In front of most favored, we'll say an improved rate with regards to the split, along with incorporated findings of the audit one through seven with emphasis on six, which is the notice. And we'll throw in there also the implementation with the cost recovery borne by bus patrol. We'll say an interlocal agreement, because it is for the prior organization. We'll scratch that. And then we'll revise six to say report back within 30 days using best efforts to do so.

Thank you so much.

Due process is number one. It's simply to provide a DOA administrative process to adjudicate all outstanding and contested. That is the whole item, the whole sub-item. Right. So 1A, new 1B, revised 2A, and revised 6.

That'll be with the amendments. All right, that sounds good. I see administration, who are the ones that are going to be following through, kind of trying to raise their hand. So is there anything that we're missing here that you feel is important, Mr. Superintendent?

Right, Mr. President. You know, the $43,000. Yeah. That's the one. Did you mention it? I'm sorry, I missed it. I think it was B.

1B. Okay. The $43,000, I mean, they are essentially incurred but not adjudicated violations. Okay. As either NOVs or UTCs. Okay.

Okay, I see maybe two hands, but I see one for sure. So Ms. Rojas, you recognize?

No, mine is going to be in a second. As I've heard everybody talk about, let's hit the landing. Well, we can't get to the landing unless we're together on the takeoff. If you're not with me on the takeoff, don't expect me in the landing. Why am I saying that? All entities need to be together at the beginning now. of this new process. If we're not together, don't expect me to be in the landing for sure. Because we gotta be together from get go. And if not, that landing won't be a smooth one. So that's all I wanted to say, thank you.

Thank you so much. Any further comments? Okay, we will now make a motion for co-sponsors.

Move it.

Second. Okay, move the item as amended to the board meeting. All in favor? Aye. Okay, so now we've heard all H items. Can I get a motion to move all H items to our meeting?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay, this exhausts today's agenda. We'll now move to any new business that any board member may have. With no new business, yes, Ms. Blanco.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe Madam Chair was the one that brought up perhaps last committee or a few committees prior about getting the list of the exempt purchases, right? I know we've gone long. But on page two, and if you don't have it present, then I can get an answer later. I see a net order value of $1.1 million for moving services, and I just kind of wondered, what are we moving so much that there's a $1.1 million cost? So I can get the answer to that later. And then I also see, while the amount is not as big, I see something on professional services, professional development, that was on the first page. just kind of curious as to what that professional development was because I know when at the very beginning when our numbers were down we talked about some professional some things having to maybe not happen as we were looking at our budget and so if I could just get some follow-up on those two items because I don't expect you to possibly have the answers right now I'd appreciate that thank you any other further new business

Okay, staff did share with all board members a staff follow-up of the October 2025 Agenda H8 as well as a follow-up to H6. Are there any questions from the board members? Ms. Santos, you're recognized.

Thank you so much. A quick question on H6's follow-up regarding, it is mentioned that we're gonna have a liaison now who's going to be working with our students who are signing to the armed forces. And I was curious about how we're gonna be using that. It is still self-reported data, but how we're gonna be using that data in our score reports given that... I'd love to see them in our clearinghouse reports, but that's still being worked on by the federal government.

Through the chair. So, yes, we will, it is still going to be self-reported data from the students, but we will continue to encourage them to make sure that it's reflected in score, because what we don't want is to have a mirror system or a separate system where the liaison may be keeping track in some other way, and then the liaison is no longer there, and we lose the data. So, as you know, the score data is available to the administrator, to the principal, to district staff, and we can pull from there. So, the intent in the item of the liaison is to formally identify a person, like a point person. Probably will be the CAP advisor, maybe could be a department chair, maybe an activities director, but someone that can help us continue to bridge the gap between us and the recruiters and from the different branches because they are their own entities. So similar to the previous conversation, we wanna make sure that we're cultivating that and we're meeting with them regularly to maximize the, the services that they can offer, which are not just enlistment, but also career advisement and different planning and GI Bill and all of the different resources. In this particular follow-up, the other part that the liaison will do is work together with the task force to help us to prepare these armed forces signing day celebrations. That for this year, our first attempt to do something large scale will be three different one in the north, one in the central, one in the south, events where we can join together with recruiters, with military representatives, regions, principals, and families. So that was the intent is to We will continue to support our schools. They recognize our military enlistees usually during the college signing day. They will also celebrate them. But we wanted to, as was requested in the item, to do something bigger and definitely something where we could involve families. And a lot of times when we do things during the day, it's challenging for the families to attend. So that point person will work together with district staff, recruiters, region, the task force as we try to bring these days, these particular events for this year to fruition.

Thank you so much and through the chair follow up. I love the idea, I know barring everything else we've been discussing around finances and how that looks, this is so great when we get to celebrate families and students next steps. I know that college signing day and scholarship, academic scholarship signing day other districts has become I think what we're trying to do here to these very large incredible celebrations where younger students get to see older students and see a brighter future that's possible for them families get to come and celebrate where their students are headed and and so I'm excited to see how these pan out and then also see how we continue to support and grow our school celebration of their college and academic scholarship signing days. Thank you.

Thank you so much. And just briefly, as we brought up finances, I did want to recommend to staff that There are many businesses in our community that want to support our fellow men and women in the armed service, especially as they're going, so we should look for sponsorships for all these events, and it shouldn't be a cost that the district needs to incur. It should be something that is sponsored by many of those organizations out there that are already partners of our district that I'm sure would want to be part of this great celebration. Any other further questions or comments? If there's no further discussion, that exhausts today's agenda. I move to adjourn today's meeting. All those in favor?

Legislative update. Legislative update.

Okay, did we have a legislative update?

I did have a quick question for Mr. Olivari, if that's okay.

Mr. Olivari, you thought you were out of it? Come on up.

Thank you. I'll be very brief, but the board had voted on an impact fee item. We were given a study, and we learned the county has a slightly different interpretation of ours, but there's a bill that needs amending to be able to take our next step with the county. So, Mr. Olivari, can you give us an update on where those needed amendments may be?

So we are working with, I'm sorry, through the Chair, so we are working with our contracted consultants on the reference bills that you're indicating that's HB 1465 as well as SB 840. This is sort of the bill that's gonna be addressing the consequences that were as a result of the SB 180 from last year. So we are working with our contracted consultants to add those additional amendments to tweak it just a little bit more. feedback that we've received so far is that the current bills as they stand are beneficial to the district. However, we'd like to add a little bit more language into what's been filed so far.

Thank you, and the second quick question is the State Board of Ed did publish some rule amendments. I know those are separate from your legislative update, but can you give us the very quick summary?

So we are still in the process of working. We have a team or a group of us that's reviewing the proposed rule. There is a good amount of change that we are in agreement with, including the ability to negotiate the shared cost, which was on our legislative platform, as agreed by the board. There's also been some timelines that have changed and a limit to the number of notices that each operator can provide. However, there are still some tweaks that we would like to add and we will be submitting for comment.

Thank you. And through the Chair, when will the State Board of Ed have its next step in this process?

So the proposed rule is slated to go to the Board of Education on February 20th in Key West.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Okay, any further questions? I think that exhausts today's meeting. All those in favor? Aye. Thank you so much. Our next meeting will start.

We're going to meet, it's 1.30, 2.30, 3 o'clock. 3?