Fiscal Accountability and Government Relations Committee - Regular Meeting

I call this meeting of the Fiscal Accountability and Government Relations Committee to order.

Mr. Chair, please, if I may have a moment?

Yes.

Thank you. I'd just like to take this opportunity as the chair of the board to obviously announce that our colleague, Dr. Steve Gallum III, is no longer a board member with us, as we all know. He is now going to be representing us in the commission OF THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S BOARD. SO JUST SIMPLY TO STATE, WE ARE EXTREMELY PROUD OF ALL THE YEARS OF SERVICE THAT HE PROVIDED TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, NOT ONLY AS A BOARD MEMBER, BUT ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE END IN MANY DIFFERENT CAPACITIES. AND WE WISH HIM MUCH SUCCESS IN HIS NEW ENDEAVORS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I heard somebody say that he's moved on to a better place, but I'm going to disagree with him on that. Yeah, me too. So let's go ahead. Before we start, let's do the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Just a brief moment of silence, please. Flex meditation. Thank you so much. I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes.

Move it. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

May I have a motion to bring the E items to the floor?

Move it. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

E items.

Mr. Steiger. Yes, sir. E1 is the monthly financial report for the period ending April 2026. Seeing no comments, E14. E14 authorizes the expenditures for the district effective July 1st until the tentative budget is adopted. E66. E66 is renewal of several of our ancillary insurance programs for next fiscal year.

E86. Good morning. Good morning. Items E86 through E88 were discussed extensively at the May 19th ABAC meeting. Through the chair, E86 is the end of program audit for the general obligation bond-funded school improvement program, which was approved by the voters of Miami-Dade County during November 2012 for $1.2 billion. A midpoint audit was performed for the period from July 1, 2012 through June 30th, 2018. The period of this audit is from July 1, 2018 through December 31st, 2024. The audit was proffered by school board chair Rojas and approved unanimously by the school board. Subsequently, an amendment increasing the scope was proffered by board member Alonso and unanimously approved by the school board. Although there are some areas cited for continued improvement, as in almost all audits, this audit reflects very well on MDCPS. Plant Moran's report noted several overarching themes that resulted from their testing. These themes include Strong program execution with the overall alignment to voters' intent. Two, certified vendors' goals were largely achieved, even when awarded amounts were not fully realized. Three, the GOP program delivered significant community and economic impact. And four, governance and oversight structures are strong, but documentation can be strengthened. Through the chair, Myself and Mr. Raul Perez will address any questions or comments you may have. Yes, Madam Chair.

Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Mr. Goodman, to you and your entire team. And yes, going back to actually 2017 with the board at that time, we wanted to fulfill our fiduciary responsibility. So therefore, I proffered the first item for the audit at that time, which was co-sponsored by Dr. Gallin. And then in 2022, I wanted to do the mid-year. So I brought forth the other item,

And that was co-sponsored unanimously, as it was alluded to.

We have to fulfill our fiduciary responsibilities. As board members, we are the ones that have to make sure that the tax dollars are spent adequately and as promised to our voters and our constituents. So therefore, I am extremely pleased to see the outcome. And I wanna thank everyone that was involved in that particular process. We do have a committee that has met on a regular basis. We have board members who assign to every one of the meetings a person who represents each one of us. I have attended the meetings, and they have been very thorough, very comprehensive presentations, and the follow-up has been exceptional and so I'm happy that we have fulfilled this portion of our responsibility and with the recommendations that were made just some very limited but we can always enhance what we currently do and improve so I'm looking forward to making sure that all of the recommendations are Have been fulfilled. So Mr. Goodman moving forward The report then the general report on the GOB and I have to I'd be remiss if I didn't recognize Raul Perez I don't know rolls here or not. Is he? There he is in the back Raul don't hide Raul, you have really played a tremendous role in this process as well. And I'd be remiss if I did not recognize you, and of course, Mr. Superintendent and the rest of the team. But moving forward, Mr. Goodman, then you can conclude that the dollars that were given to this district to spend on renovations, which were so badly needed, especially in schools that were very old, and I have several of those, that it's truly made a significant difference being able to modernize those schools to the level where they should be. Moving forward, as the auditor, you would say that this was successfully completed for Miami-Dade County Public Schools, sir, through the chair?

Through the chair, yes.

All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's all.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Former Santos.

Very quickly, I'll just echo the sentiment. I'm so proud to be able to present this audit to the public and continue to build trust in MDCPS. I know that isn't the case with other similar programs across the state. And so thank you to our administrative team, to Mr. Raul Perez, to Mr. Goodman on presenting this. It's a great feeling when you can go and share very transparently with the public that their dollars were well spent today. where we said they would go in supporting our students.

Hear, hear. Any other comments? Thank you so much.

Mr. Chair, on another one, not on that one, because he mentioned all of them.

Yeah, I was going to ask him if he had additional comments on E87 or E88. Through the chair, I'll answer any questions you may have. Madam Chair, before you.

Yes, thank you. On E87, I could not be prouder to see that out of all of the schools that were audited. We had the 50 school centers in this report were all doing a fine job. And we owe that to the principals at the school, We owe that to the treasurers at the school. We owe that to the teachers, to the region, district personnel, everyone involved. It's not always the case. And at this time, I am very, very pleased to be able to sit here and look at reports that were conducted with very positive outcomes. And thank you to you and your team, again, for the audits that have been conducted, for the public to see that we, again, are fulfilling our fiduciary responsibilities at all levels, not just with the board, with the district, but at the school sites, it is being done as well. So thank you, and congratulations to every one of our administrators in every single school in Miami-Dade County. Thank you very much, sir.

Thank you, Ms. Goodwin. E141.

E141 is a ward of an ITN for voice services. E142. Mr.

Chair? I'm sorry. No worries.

Go ahead.

Thank you. Mr. Steiger, can you or someone from the team overseeing this procurement walk us through how the services presented in E141 are similar and or different from the voice over IP services that we contract under separate agreements?

Through the chair, Mrs. Santos, I have folks from ITS that will be able to answer your question. Great.

Good morning.

Through the chair, of course.

So the bid that's... is being awarded is for all voice services that includes local and long distance. So this includes all phone sets, anything, any voice that happens in the school itself. So that's what this is inclusive of.

Through the chair, thank you so much for that overview. We also, through different contracts, have voice over IP as a service that we have in our school district. I know downtown has had some transitions. School sites have had some transitions. What's the difference through the chair?

A traditional voice over IP system is going to be cloud based and it's going to drive all communication through a network or through the internet as opposed to this particular system, which is going to be inclusive of our PBXs and our traditional phone systems and the copper lines that we're going to be replacing.

Thank you. Through the chair, would you agree that the copper lines are an outdated technology that's being phased out?

Absolutely. Through the chair, we are. The one benefit of copper lines, and that's why we're still using them, is because for our emergency services, they bring their own power and circuit. So even if we lost network, we lost power at the schools, elevators will still work. Alarms will still work and so on. This new award allows for LTE services. So if we're down, we have battery backup and cellular services to maintain what the old lines would do.

Thank you. But through the chair, it's my understanding that providers that provide the servicing of copper lines are even phasing it out. So it's not even something that we may even be able to purchase in the future, even though today it does provide some backup.

That is correct. That's why, through the chair, we're moving to the LTE cellular services as opposed to the copper lines.

Thank you. for walking us through that, because I was very concerned to see a procurement for a technology that, frankly, is being phased out, I think, just generally in the world. And, you know, the cost outlined in this item is almost $16,000 per location. I know that's not, you know, it's an average across all locations. And we did spend $7.5 million the previous year on this. That's a large sum of money for a technology that we really ought to be phasing out very quickly, and so can you walk us through the timeline on which you will phase this out, please?

Yeah, through the chair. It is very expensive, and it's getting more expensive. The award has four copper lines only for transitional purposes, so we can get off of them. While we get off, we still have to maintain that kind of emergency services at the schools. But normally, and I'm gonna use our very successful move to our new wide area network that we did through AT&T, We meet with them, and then we create a schedule of services that, because of the amount of schools, usually last between a year and a year and a half, if they're aggressive. And a lot of this has to do with AT&T's ability to ramp up and provide services to all the different schools. We come up with that schedule of services, and then we act on it. Right now, we're on the design phase, where we're gonna meet with AT&T, and we meet with their project managers. And then as soon as we have the scheduled services, we'll know the exact date of how long it would take. But based on our past experiences, it is over a year.

Thank you, so through the chair, what I'd like to ask administration to do before the next board meeting is to really take a look at the number of years you're asking us to approve this contract for. And I know Mr. Fernandez sent me, when I asked about this timeline, an estimate of 12 to 18 months. I know you're in beginning design phases, so let's say I take 18 months. as worst case scenario, that takes us to 2028 latest. And I really think that it is appropriate and responsible to hold ourselves to that kind of timeline so that we are fiscally being responsible in not I get why we need to spend it now, but I certainly would not be supportive of spending it three years from now. And so I'd like to revisit the timeline that you're proposing on this procurement so that we don't find ourselves five years from now saying, well, we had five years and we took a little longer and we're double paying for voice services essentially. Is that something that, Mr. Superintendent, you'd be comfortable looking at?

Through the chair, absolutely, Ms. Santos.

Thank you so much. Okay.

Thank you so much. Seeing no comments. Colleagues, why don't we just jump ahead to E201 before we get to the hot potato.

And, yeah, Mr. Chair, I'll do E142 really quickly also, the award of an ITB. Oh, yes, E142 and then E201. Yeah, I'll do an award of an ITB for classroom and miscellaneous furniture. Comments on E142? E201, please. And then E201 is request authorization to accept grants and donations for this month. Yes, Madam Chair.

Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And again, I'm thrilled to see BPK is extremely important to all of us. Early childhood education is where we need to go. Third grade is too late. And so anytime that we get additional funding for our students in those levels, it's truly very impactful and very positive for as a whole for all of our children. And so I'm very, very happy to see that now for the students that are eligible for VPK, the early literacy skill instructional support for the summer before participating in kindergarten is available. Can someone elaborate as to who would be eligible for this through the chair?

Mr. Steiger, who can best answer that?

Madam Chair, Mr. Chair, may I? That's really detailed, Ms. Rojas, so we're going to follow up with that maybe at some point today. We'll give you the update, probably in the academics committee.

No problem. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Anybody else on E201? Okay. And now the moment we've all been waiting for, E143.

Yes, Mr. Chair. So obviously, E143 is the award of an ITN for district health care benefits program. I usually just read the item name. But on this one, I will say that this is obviously the end of the road of a very long process, a very important process. We followed, as an administration, we followed the board's policy to the letter. The procurement was deemed clean. It was done well. Obviously, there's A lot of prevailing opinions. There were prevailing opinions on the committee itself. But the group of participants that the board put in its policy all took a vote. And our selection is as stated in the item. While I was on the selection committee, I know that I am... certainly not the one who is the expert on this subject, so I'm sure a lot of your questions, while I might do my best to answer, I will defer to either Mr. Fox or Ms. Novo or even our Aon team who is in the audience as well.

Thank you, Mr. Steyer. Yes, Dr. Benos-Mendigo.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm always looking at a way to enhance the lives of our children and bring about different programs. That's part of my legacy, being creative. Want to talk just a bit this morning about this item. So I have to thank you first, Mr. Steiger and staff for providing this information as we re-engage in this serious discussion pertaining to healthcare. A $3 billion decision that impacts every employee of MDCPS. There's an old saying that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not to their own facts. Facts at their very essence are based on numbers and data. And we have all heard the expression that data is not commensurate with the lie. Some of the information previously received gave me pause. I paused for just a minute because I have a huge set of family members in the system and they do talk a bit to me. So I have since learned of concerns in another district where reported numbers did not align with actual outcomes. Given our current financial challenges and our fragile position as a district, We have a responsibility to dot every I and cross every T. We must validate the numbers, ask questions, ask questions, and ask more questions. We must confirm and verify information, of course, before making decisions. I have a little bit of a concern about some of the things that have been represented to me, and maybe not all of them have been represented to me. So let's make sure that there are questions about the process and procedures. As we know, this was not a slam dunk and the entire committee did not unanimously agree. If there was doubt among the members who served on the committee, individuals whom I respect, value and have great confidence in, and the final vote, From what I was told, if there's a correction, you let me know, was nine to six, which gives me further pause. I also understand that some of our union members were not fully supportive of this recommendation. And again, I find myself asking, why? I have to tell you, I don't think they read it out loud. I used to be a union rep, so I know people will trust the union because I talk about it. Those concerns cannot simply be dismissed. For me, they represent red flags that warrant further review and discussion and validation before moving forward with a decision of this magnitude. So if there is even a sliver of doubt that could put this district in a fragile financial position, let alone prevent the district from realizing as much revenue as possible, I have real concerns. Some of you may be aware of what happened in Central Florida, or in Orange County, public schools to be exact, where a healthcare decision was made. And now one of our colleagues is on record stating they're currently facing a 23% increase. These are issues I cannot afford and will not allow to put this district in the same position. Due to diligence is not optional. It is essential. There are several options out there that we can consider. As I mentioned earlier, I do not feel comfortable moving forward with this recommendation. I know I've said a lot more than I usually say, but this is something that I've said to colleagues. We might consider, Mr. Superintendent, Mr. Chair, in making sure that our children get a background in what we consider as Health care is important. So God bless you, and as I close that, I'll see you on the journey.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll jump in and just say just a couple of things. Now that there's no connoissance and no protest, I'll echo something I said when it first came up in committee. I think we have to, as a board, take a look at our policy on procuring this particular situation. As a former city attorney, and I've done a lot of procurement over my legal career, the fact that you score something in the first segment of evaluation and then result in a voice vote where we as board members can't necessarily identify without digging into a record how they got to that decision, what are the values that they put on different things. And then ultimately it comes to us. I had a conversation with Mr. Steiger where he represented that our decision up here is to ratify that the process has been done correctly. And I disagree because as a board, we have policy prerogatives about what we want to do with insurance. Maybe we want to spend more. Maybe we want to spend less. We want to incentivize this and incentivize this. I'm not trying to undermine the decision. I just think that going forward, we have to take a look at that so that anybody in this process can see this is how this group got culled down from three to two, and this is how the two that made it to presentations got two and became one, and there's a succession to that. And so I do want to work on that. I'll work on that with staff just because I think we have to have that level of transparency Every contract I've ever seen that resulted in presentations had an objective criteria by which the ultimate deciders of the recommendation to us was evaluated against a criteria that, if it was significant enough, it came to the council, commission, or board. If not, it was generated by the administration. The second thing I'm going to say is, while I don't have particular doubts about the capability of the recommended party, I do think that there is doubt with regards to some of the information that's in the ether. And I said this to staff, frankly, I said it to everyone with whom we've spoken with. When you've got differing parties protesting about the same thing, and this was discussed at committee, that resulted in very similar letters advancing the same position, you've got to take a look at that and say, all right, well, then there's something with our process that resulted in confusion. And I agree with you, Dr. Vandrossman-Nagal. We have to have... Not that this was not transparent, but clarifying the record, clarifying the information, because we have to turn around and respond to the community, and that community is not only our constituents, but also the people inside the Beltway with whom we do business on a regular basis. And I agree with also, you know, we just sat through a budget workshop where we're looking at another year of daunting challenges, which we're weathering well, but this is a multi-year contract that will have an impact on not just this year's budget, but on subsequent budgets, and this decision will be with us for a significant period of time. The last thing I'm just gonna say as food for thought is we were going out to bid a little bit later, but roughly around the same time that Miami-Dade County was going out to bid for their stuff. I know that we're Miami-Dade County Public Schools, and we like to think of ourselves as a unique animal in this state, but the reality is big governments are big governments. and I do look at Miami-Dade County from time to time and say, what are they doing and what can we learn from them, what can they learn from us? At the same time that we were going out to bid, they were towards the end of their bid process, and they came to a similar inflection point where there was confusion, disagreement, consternation about different parts of the process. They had their own benefits consultant, and they ultimately selected a third consultant, AON, which is our benefits consultant, to give a third party validation. And I asked my staff to pull down some memoranda with that. And they literally requested it on July 6th. This is a memo from the mayor of the county to the board of county commissioners dated August 6th, 2025. They requested July 16th to obtain a second independent analysis of medical claims data of the proposals received in response to the solicitation for self-funded employment health care program And they were able to turn around a validation within 30 days. Ever since I heard Miami-Dade County do that, I thought, what an amazing idea, if there was ever a need for it. Given what has happened, and I know what the administration is going to say with regards to the protests being dismissed or withdrawn voluntarily. And I said this to them in private, so I'm going to say it to all of you publicly, is that Because a legal process didn't find its way through, doesn't necessarily clear the record or the air amongst all of us and the business that we're doing here. And if a process like the one the county embarked upon resulted in the same outcome as is presented today, no harm, no foul. Then we confirm with the public and we confirm with the community that the numbers represented were accurate. If it doesn't, which I have no reason to believe it won't, but if it doesn't, then we did our due diligence oversight as a board. and got to a clear sense. So taking it a step farther, using Miami-Dade County, that's where my head would be at, where I don't necessarily know I want to upend the process and start all over again, but I do think that there's a mechanism in place by which we can literally do the inverse of what the county did. They used ours, we can use theirs. Not that I've spoken to Gallagher, not that I've spoken to the county, not that I've spoken to anybody, but just in terms of processes concerned, where within 30 days, or as soon as practicable by one of these consultants, We can have a validation and then come back with a degree of confidence that, frankly, I don't have today. And those are my comments. If anybody else has any additional comments. Board Member Santos.

Thank you so much, and thanks to my colleagues. I know we've all spent quite a few number of hours on this one. So I want to thank staff, selection committee, procurement, risk and benefits, and Aon for what was clearly a lengthy and complex process. Like I said, we've spent lots of hours reviewing this, including the committee discussions, the concerns raised by the proposers. and of course the recommendation before us today. Really where I've landed is this is not a decision about choosing between good and bad options. I think it was clear that all three firms are capable of providing those healthcare services to our employees. The question really is more about whether, as a district, we have sufficient confidence in the information presented to us today to make a decision which does involve billions of dollars over the next several years and, frankly, I think is probably one of the most consequential when you're talking about 48,000 lives and their health care. And so I take this very, very seriously. So... you know, if you remove, you know, network adequacy, customer service implementation from from the picture, and we focus only on confidence and projected savings, and whether they could be individually validated. I have some questions that I'd like to ask before a final vote. So let me just start with the questions. First, what specific factors ultimately drove the recommendation beyond projected cost?

Mr. Stugger? Sure, yeah. Mr. Espino, Ms. Santos, the qualifications and experience, confidence that the provider could do the work necessary given their background and I mean, the criteria that, while it was a voice vote in the final end, the criteria doesn't change. The criteria that was used for the initial vote, the way this district's always done its process, is the same criteria. So experience, qualifications, price, those are all weighted. Those are all used.

Thank you. I think through the chair, maybe accurately, they were considered or asked to be considered, right? But there is no, again, in the final voice vote, there is no sort of objective sort of weight or score assigned to any of those categories, although every committee member was asked through the chair to evaluate on those criteria, correct?

Yeah, correct. At the end of our voice, the end of the vote at the last meeting, it wasn't a stand-alone meeting. It was the end of many, many months in meetings where committee members had hours and hours and hours of discussion. It wasn't random. opinions were formed over the myriad of months. And so, yeah, I think by the end vote, everyone in the room knew what they wanted and why they wanted that.

Thank you. And I think that, you know, I certainly want to be very clear on the record that I want to respect the procurement process. I want to respect the selection committee process. I think it's important that we keep that intact and integral to future and all procurement. And so I'm not interested in really doing that. But as my colleague said, we are the policymakers, and we do have a strong... responsibilities when it comes to leading on the vision for this procurement and ensuring that the data before us is great. So talk to me about the level of independent validation that was possible for each of the proposers saving assumptions. I know there were differing degrees of possible validation. Can you walk us through that, please?

Sure, Mr. Espino, Ms. Santos. If I understand your question correctly, yes, so a lot on the price side, right, there were estimates that were given, and those, often they come from the the discounts that the insurance companies are able to negotiate with individual providers from around the county, state, nation. And in terms of independent verification, that was really important to the committee from the first meeting. We made it clear that we want to be able to compare apples to apples. It was very important for us. Both the unions and administration felt that way very strongly. So we asked all of the respondents to submit all information that could be verified through Aon, which is our consultants and the true experts in the room here, that we're able to price these things out. Obviously, it's very complicated. We just approved an item on classroom furniture, much more simple than costing out how much a health insurance plan is going to cost us. So since both... Cigna and United were part of Aon's discount database. They were able to independently verify all of that information. At the committee, we expressed to all the other proposers, including AVMED, our true desire for them to be able to give all of that data, the same that Aon has it for the competitors, give it out so we can get independent verification. But instead, what was submitted was... the discount rates that were certified by their own internal actuary. So to that end, one of the three finalists weren't able to receive independent verification.

Thank you for that clarification. So through the chair, in the case of the third provider that you mentioned, we couldn't get that independent clarification. How did we make that request for the discounted database? upload, let's say, of data?

Well, we made it both verbally in one of the selection committee meetings, there were many, as well as through procurement.

through the chair when you say through procurement?

Certainly the way every procurement works, but in particular this one, all written questions and all answers go through the procurement office just to keep things clean and nice. We don't want to have a million people contacting the vendors, so all communication goes in and out of procurement.

Thank you, so through the Chair, I would definitely ask that that communication, for the sake of me understanding when that was asked, if that could be please forwarded to me before our final vote next Wednesday, that'd be great. Sure. So we have different levels, I think you could agree, of independently verifiable projected savings. What protections actually exist as the item is presented today to our district if those assumptions, any of them, prove inaccurate?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

What protections exist for us as a district if some of the data presented doesn't actually work out through the chair?

Sure. So, Mr. Chairman Santos, in the end, each of the respondents and finalists gave a... an amount by which they were, they put their own money on the line, basically guaranteeing that their discount rates came in. Those I mean, one of the respondents, in this case, United, had a more aggressive guarantee, but that guarantee was orders of magnitude less than actually what the savings promised were going to be. So I can answer for my vote and what I made public at the committee meeting was, I just assumed they would all miss their threshold. And okay, you're going to guarantee me, I'm going to take, when I price this out in my head, right, I was able to say, okay, you're going to give me your full amount that you put on the line, right? And one had a little bit more than the other, which had a little bit more than the other, but in the end, the guarantee... isn't anywhere near the potential savings. So for example, the savings in pharmaceutical alone was over $120 million both for United and Cigna over current rates. If that doesn't come in, none of them were guaranteeing me $120 million that they're going to pay me back if it didn't happen. They had a threshold for each of them. so there are guarantees in place but i failed to see any of these companies saying we will reimburse you for the full amount of your guarantee so in the end the guarantee to me is not worth much the guarantee to me is what you're willing to actually put your own money on the line and none of these companies came up and said yeah sure up to 500 million dollars will guarantee you because their revenue wasn't that much because they're not willing to guarantee that much because in the end They can't guarantee that their negotiations with the different providers around this county and state are going to result in those savings. They cannot... They're not willing to put an unlimited amount of their own money to guarantee that. But unfortunately, in this case, we are the insurance company, right? It's our money. It's our taxpayer money. So in the end, we are... I mean... to kind of piggyback off what Dr. Bendris-Mendegal said earlier, there is a... Since it is our money and it is... We are most exposed. I can tell you, you know, as the CFO that was sitting, happened to be sitting on this selection committee, I know, Dr. Benjamin, you were the union steward in UTD, right? I can tell you that Joe Minor, like, he made it very public that he cared a lot about the money. Like, this was a super important item to them because we know the ramifications, right? So we know what happens if the guarantees don't come out. We know what happens. No one better than us knows what happens if the rates go fully up. And there is no one that was out there to say, don't worry, MDCPS, feel safe, because I will guarantee... The entire increase of health insurance will be on me as an insurance company, not as you as the payers of the bill. They all promise different things, but in the end, they put a fraction of that money on the line of their own money.

Thank you for walking us through that. And I did, you know, in every conversation I had asked, you know, I said, this is a wonderful upside projection, but. at the end of the day, I have to be responsible for the downside and the protections that exist on that. So it's definitely something that I'm carrying with lots of weight in this decision. Okay, I mean, look, as board members, we're not actuaries. It's not our job to rerun the procurement process. We're not consultants. I don't want that job. Lots of respect to everyone who has it. Or members of the selection committee. So In your best estimation, Mr. Steiger, what's the timeline or capacity needed to do something like Board Member Espino was presenting to be able to verify the data that we felt we did not fully get to verify?

Sure, Mr. Chairman Santos. I see no reason to think that we would move slower than the county in that regard. So if they were able to do it within 30 days, I will just caution the board on one thing. If the vote is postponed even till July, I never make guarantees, the likelihood that we will not comply with the negotiation law put in place by the state for how fast we have to negotiate contracts once the budget is signed, it is a high likelihood we will miss that deadline. So I just want to put that out there. I don't know the ramifications of that. I am not an expert. But given the timelines, the likelihood of us missing that deadline are high, but I won't guarantee anything.

OK, so to close, certainly I want some clarity on that in the next day or two to understand what possible ramifications there are. And certainly, it is not my intent when this item came or what protests came after. It's not my intent to slow things down, certainly. And especially when it comes to people's health care, I think they deserve that to be ready to go on day one. I think we'll... Once we get these final pending answers, I'll be ready to make my decision. I think one thing that's become clear and I've asked, I've been very consistent in my request and ask for objective tools that measure whether it's procurement, superintendent selection, superintendent evaluation, I think I've been the most uniform in saying please let's put in place upfront objective solutions and let's find creative ways to solve for potential biases, et cetera, and certainly expect that regardless of what happens here, we will improve how we use objective tools to be able to back up every decision we make. I saw Dr. Gallen around somewhere. I don't know if he's still here, but I know he brought that up in December, so I want to give props where they're due because he was very clear about that in December, and I certainly expect SUPPORT IT AND I THINK WOULD HAVE SAVED US QUITE A BIT OF TROUBLE IN THIS CASE. SO I LOOK FORWARD TO THE PENDING ANSWERS TO BE ABLE TO MAKE UP MY MIND. THANK YOU.

VICE CHAIR KALUCCI.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND TO ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES, THANK YOU. THIS IS A DECISION THAT CANNOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY. IT'S A $3 BILLION DECISION. I'M VERY CONFLICTED AT THIS POINT OF WHERE WE'RE HEADED. I don't want to be, and Dr. Bendros-Mendigal mentioned something when she spoke about Orange County. Could you reread that for us, Dr. Bendros-Mendigal, through the chair, if that's okay with you, Mr. Espino? Of course. Yes, absolutely.

So... If there's even a sliver of doubt that could put this district in a fragile financial position, let alone prevent the district from realizing as much revenue as possible, ah, some of you may be aware of what happened in Central Florida or in Orange County Public Schools to be exact, where a health care decision was made and now one of our Colleagues is on record stating that they are currently facing a 23% increase. Is that what you wanted, Madam Vice-Chair?

Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you for indulging me about it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for bringing that to my attention. Dr. Bendris-Mendigal, can somebody from staff explain to me clearly what the guarantee means? I don't want to be in a situation like Orange County. I don't want our employees to be in that situation. I don't want this district to be in that situation. And we're very good at putting band-aids on things at the moment, but we have to start looking further down the line. And I want to prevent that from happening. I know that there's no guarantees in life, only death and taxes. But other than that, what can we do as a district? And I just, you know, I asked the superintendent who is best on staff can answer that question for me and really explain it for me and the listening public through the chair.

Yeah, so through the chair, Ms. Glucie, I'll take the Orange County and then I'll turn it over to staff who I think potentially can do a better job explaining the guarantee.

No, I want the answer through the chair respectfully about the guarantee, how that works.

Yeah, yeah, for sure. So I will just say, just as a precursor to that, I will just say that for Orange County in particular, since we've done a bit of research into it, what I'm not... What's happening in Orange County isn't necessarily applicable to Miami-Dade County Public Schools because of the way they were managing their health insurance plan prior. So they were supplementing their plan with general fund revenues. Their massive increase is beyond just the percentage increase that they're dealing with. Their financial issue is because of the way they were managing their plan. But as for in regards to the definition of the guarantee and what that really means, I'll turn it over to Mr. Fox. And if Mr. Fox would prefer to answer, he can go ahead.

Thank you. And through the chair, just one last question. Well, go ahead, Mr. Fox, and explain the guarantee better and how that works. Because I think that's something that we really have to consider. Because we don't want to be in a situation where we are... FACED WITH A HUGE INCREASE. WHAT IS OUR PROJECTED INCREASE AT THE MOMENT EACH YEAR THROUGH THE CHAIR? MR. FOX.

SURE. THROUGH THE CHAIR. OUR MEDICAL TREND CURRENTLY COMBINED WITH MEDICAL AND PHARMACY IS ROUGHLY 7.5%. OKAY.

THROUGH THE CHAIR. SO THIS INCREASE IS PROJECTED BECAUSE OF INFLATION, BECAUSE SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PASSING THAT COST, NOT PASSING IT ON, WE HAVE TO ABSORB IT OR Our employees have to, their premiums go up through the chair. Is that correct?

Correct. Through the chair, traditionally, that amount is presented during executive session, and the board makes a decision of how they want to allocate that increase in expense.

Okay. So I have a big concern as far as our employees and our district, and this is it. It is... Our teachers, our staff, we need to look out for what they're paying out of pocket because it's becoming, and it's not just a district issue, it's across the nation, but it's becoming an issue where people are working just to pay their healthcare. with the salaries that they're on. I lived it as a teacher, and I know my colleagues when I was teaching lived that. So I don't wanna be in a situation where we have such a huge increase that we are in that position that we're gonna either have to pass that on to our employees or absorb it as a district through the chair. Does that make sense?

Yes, ma'am, through the chair.

Okay. So those are my questions for now, but can you go ahead and explain the guarantee?

Sure. I'll do my best, and if we need further clarification or a deeper dive, we have Aon here to assist. Thank you. So each respondent gave a trend guarantee and a network discount guarantee. So the trend guarantee is if our, right, currently we're using $7. 7.5%. And then it's been fairly accurate. So there, each one proposed a different trend guarantee. And I'll just kind of touch on each one. So AVMED gave a 7% trend guarantee. So if the trend is above that, they give certain guarantees with the 3% of their fees at risk. So that would be over five years, a maximum payout of two point almost $2.3 million. And on the network discount side, and the network discount side is they're negotiating, their contracts that they negotiate with the providers out there, the hospitals, the individual doctors, won't exceed a certain threshold. And for AVMED, it was, and there's certain caveats there. I'm not going to get into the weeds on it, but I'll give you the highlights. So they have a 20% enrollment corridor. So if they fail to negotiate with their providers over a year period and it exceeds that 20%, they'll give us certain monetary insurances. So every 1% below that discount for five years, it's a yearly payment of about $3 million is the maximum, and over five years, $76. That's a high threshold of a 20%. INCREASE IN PROVIDER COST OVER A YEAR. SO I'M NOT SURE THAT'S A GUARANTEED NUMBER OR HOW STRONG A NUMBER THAT IS. AND IF YOU LOOK AT, LET ME LOOK AT THE NEXT ONE. HERE'S UNITED. THEY GAVE A YEAR ONE, A 1% TREND GUARANTEE. SO THERE SHOULD BE A PAYOUT DURING THAT YEAR ONE FOR SURE BECAUSE THEY'RE GUARANTEEING THAT. And that was 1% lower than the Aon health plan cost, and I guess that's that 7.5, but they also built in a corridor, which is kind of like a point spread of an extra 2%. So the math gets a little complicated on what the actual trend is, but it's 2% over that number. So generally it's a six-year, almost a $7 million payout, and it's approximately $36 million over the If they don't hit that trend, you know, the trend guarantees are exceeded every single year. And let me see if United has a SIGNA. SIGNA is a 7% trend guarantee over five years, and that would be the maximum payout for them over five years is about $2.2 million. Okay. And again, I'm sorry, I'm looking at the one. Just bear with me. I didn't want to give you the wrong thing. That was for admin, excuse me. For Cigna, it is a 5% trend guarantee. So if it's over 5% with the 1% corridor, then that will trigger the trend guarantee payout. So every 1% below the discount guarantee or above the trend guarantee is $1.7 million per year, and that would be about $17 million at risk in total.

Right, through the chair. Now, this was all presented to the committees. All of this information was committed through the committee. Through the chair, yes. So, okay. And at this time, I'm just going to pause and let my colleagues, if anybody else has questions.

So through the chair, I just want to say that all of them are all aspirational numbers and I don't think we can count them.

Right, right. Just hypothetically talking about, but just for me, to educate myself making this important decision, those are things that I need to be aware of. And I'm inclined right now to look at what Board Member Espino suggested. I haven't made a decision yet, but... You just said, Board Member Espino, that it was three weeks that they took? Or you had it in the memo, I was listening closely.

So on the county- On the county side. On the county memo, they requested on July 16th at the commission meeting, this memo was dated August 6th with a summary of findings. And then there's a subsequent memo on the 12th. So I mean, from what I gleaned from this, this came from budget, this one came from the actual mayor's office, in less than 30 days, And now that I have the floor, forgive me, because I don't remember how long you want to speak. I'm going to tell you right now, guys, you've heard me say this before. This was with regards to the co-location. I hate having to make a decision with a gun to my head. And it seems like this continues to be a pattern for us that it's like, if you don't do this by this date, the sky is going to fall. So I just have one question. But if this was still in protest... This would not be before us. So what would happen under the circumstance if the protest continued and when we would be forced to make this decision or would we be facing a consequence?

Yeah, sure, Mr. Chair. When this was going through the protest, there was no consideration for this ever coming to the board after June. Everyone in the magistrate was confident that this would have been done in May and this would come to the board in June.

All right, so what I'm saying to you is that if it wasn't done on that timeline, what would have happened?

I mean, that's why we started the process so early, right, last summer, was to avoid that. And this was always, there was, we didn't have any concern that that magistrate process would have wrapped up and this come to the board in June.

All right, but that wasn't an answer to my question. My question was, what if it had gone longer?

So the risk was always, well, the risk was always, even before the new legislation passed, the risk was always, the only risk we truly have is we don't have insurance in place by January 1st. Even if we push to July, I'm confident that we will have insurance in place on January 1. My concern is not that there won't be insurance in place. My issue, July is, I mean, there are people in the risk management office that are going to be very stressed, but we will have, yeah, that's another issue. Mr. Fox is a poster child of a conversation. My concern isn't that. My concern was the other thing that we mentioned.

Okay.

Boromir Blanco.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't want to spend a lot of time saying some of the things that have been repeated, but I think because so many times people go back to the record, right? I need to go on record saying that this is absolutely one of the most important decisions that I have been asked to make and probably will make from a financial standpoint when we look at the impact that this has. And then on top of that, the personnel side. And I want to make it very clear because in doing my homework and meeting with various people from all sides to try to do my best to understand this, a lot of times comments were made, well, this could become political. The only people I'm representing here right now is the community and our teachers. And any questions I ask, anything that I try to ascertain, to get to, I don't wanna say the truth, but to get the most information possible to make the most educated decision is strictly thinking of those people, the people that are relying on our healthcare, the people that instruct our students, take care of our students, and their family members who rely on this healthcare as well. In trying to familiarize myself with everything, it's such a complex process to understand right because I've been educated somewhat right but there's it seems like when we look at the administrative fees the ASO then there's fixed fees then there's the discounted fees the trend guarantees like there's so many factors in place that it is impossible in one week's notice from when cone is lifted to making a decision to feel completely informed to make the decision And so I think I probably, I'm not one to ask a bunch of questions when being briefed. I think yesterday's was probably the longest I've ever had. Poor Mr. Steiger may have felt like I was, you know, cross-examination and that wasn't the purpose. It was really to get the answers that I needed from understanding who's on the committee, which individual voted which way, not because of the individual, but who they represent. and trying to get as many answers as I could. Obviously, because of sunshine, I didn't know where my other colleagues would be, but I'm somewhat glad to hear that they are pretty much in the same position I am, don't feel fully comfortable and ready to vote one way or another, right? It feels like I would need more information. Because it's such a complex process, And first of all, I want to thank, you know, everybody involved, including Aon. And this is not a reflection of not trusting some of the things that were, you know, independently verified by them. It's the questions that I have, and it relates to what was brought up by Board Member Bendross-Mendingo in quoting Orange County. I want to ensure that there are No surprises when it comes to fixed fees, because I heard that some things are optional and a la carte with a suggested vendor. But I want to know what are those things that are a la carte? Because not knowing what they are and just being told we won't go with any of those a la carte, some of them might be public health issues. Some of them might be wellness. I want to make sure mental health isn't one, that substance abuse isn't one. So Through the chair, do we have some of that information of what exactly are those optional fees that would not be included in the current proposal that was given?

Of course.

At a high level, some of them are related to wellness, like a diabetes program or a particular hypertension program that we might want to adopt, where it comes as a flat fee or a fixed fee, as you referenced.

Through the chair, some of those programs end up being cost beneficial down the road. And so again, there's just so many factors at play that my own mind can't handle. that I have some level of concern. And so with some of the other providers, are all of those things included in the fixed fee, or are they also a la carte? Because that information I didn't get to in my homework for the last few days through the chair.

Through the chair. All the respondents had some particular programs that would have a separate cost associated with them.

Would it be through the chair, would it be possible before the board meeting to get some of that information? If it's pages and pages long, at least some idea of what's including and what's not, because I've already heard the expression, and it's one that I've been using for the last four or five days, apples to apples and oranges to oranges. I feel like I haven't been able to get an apples to apples comparison. And I know that that's where we're relying on our consultant And I understand one of them couldn't be verified independently, but there's a potential at a huge savings, right? So it's like, how can I go to bed at night knowing that I have had all of the information? that I need to make a good decision. And so again, that's some of the questions I have. Going with, following up on board member Espino's suggestion, I'm glad to hear, because I had already written down, well, are there extensions? There's almost always something, right? Even if there's a guideline, what are the ramifications? If it's something foreseeable, how can we try to work around that? But I would like to know, and I don't know if you know it already, if we did decide to go that route, what would be the cost of an independent verification? Through the chair. Do we know, and if not, you can get back to me, but.

Yeah, Mr. Chair, Ms. Blanco, we had done that request, and it would be under $50,000.

Through the chair, Ron, I believe that was for the medical only, if you want. If we wanted to do the combined medical and pharmacy, it would be closer to $100,000, I think.

As far as I can tell, I'm sorry to interrupt you. As far as I can tell, I'll look back at my notes because I obviously did not commit this stuff to memory. Not in my notes, but the memo itself. I don't recall if in this memo they talk about splitting the medical and the pharmacy, and I don't have a price for what Aon did at the county.

But just as a follow-up, the numbers we're looking at are the proposals and what was considered by committee is looking at both through the chair. So to really get an accurate...

Through the chair, yeah, we're awarding both services, pharmacy and medical.

In this item, okay.

Homework between now and committee and board meeting.

I don't think I have any more questions at the time.

Thank you. Madam Chair.

Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And first and foremost, I'm going to say that for me, the most consequential decision I'm making as a board member is a selection of a new superintendent. That's number one. Two would probably land right here where we are right now. For me, everything I do will be thinking of the best interests of those that I serve. Who are those? Most importantly, our students, their parents, our teachers, our administrators, our bus drivers, our security monitors, our law enforcement department, every single person that trusts us to do what is in their best interest. If you recall many times in the past, I have addressed the issue of concerns that I have had In reference to some of the services that are provided, for example, someone who has cancer and has to have treatments, not having to go to a shopping center to have certain treatment done at a shopping center where if they have any type of reaction, they won't be in a hospital where they need to be. I've also had concerns about the price. the cost of certain drugs that are absolutely essential for some people to be able to live. I'm also concerned about the fact that when you go to a doctor and you see a specialist, you know, the amount that you have to pay has increased and we're living during tumultuous and difficult times right now. So we're always trying to get whatever is in the best interest of those that we serve. With that said, I'm also someone who believes very much in ensuring that if we have procedures in place, that we follow them. I'm a stickler to follow the law, to follow the procedures, to start meetings on time. That's who I am. And so not being an attorney, I'm going to be directing some questions to our attorney because I've received several letters from different attorneys here in front of me. And I have them here with me, all of them. I believe very much that due diligence is something that we all have to abide by. We have to follow our heart, but we also have to do our due diligence. We have a process in place. Mr. Board Attorney, Mr. General Counsel, sir, do we have currently procedures in place TO DEAL WITH PROCUREMENT ISSUES?

YES, THROUGH THE CHAIR. THERE'S POLICY 6320, WHICH DEALS WITH GENERAL PROCUREMENT. THERE'S ALSO POLICY 6330 THAT REFERS TO INSURANCE PRODUCTS. AND THERE'S OBVIOUSLY SOME COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ISSUES THAT ARE ALSO INVOLVED AS WELL.

THANK YOU. AND AGAIN, KNOWING THAT THIS IS A VERY COMPLEX AND A VERY LENGTHY PROCESS THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE. HAVE THE MEETINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY TAKEN PLACE THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE PROCESS, HAVE THEY FOLLOWED OUR POLICY TO THE T, NO VARIATIONS? THROUGH THE CHAIR.

YES, THROUGH THE CHAIR, THE POLICIES WERE FOLLOWED FROM MY UNDERSTANDING.

MY NEXT QUESTION TO YOU, SIR. does not agree with the outcome that a group has made after following due diligence, after following procedures, after making sure that policy is also followed. They have the ability to go for a bid protest. Is that correct, sir?

Yes, through the chair. They do have a right to file a bid protest if they disagree with the recommended award.

Okay, so through the chair, my next question is, an administrative law judge and a LJ, I dealt with them when I was the assistant superintendent in the Office of Professional Standards when people did not agree with some decisions that we might have made regarding personnel-related issues. An administrative law judge would review the information that is submitted and could overturn the final recommendation if it had been voted on by the board, let's say, and it had passed. They could overturn that or not through the chair.

Yes, through the chair. So the administrative law judge, which there was a bid protest filed in this particular matter, an administrative law judge would review the bid protests, the issues that are raised by the aggrieved party to determine whether the policies were followed, the statutes were followed. And then, of course, the administrative law judge would make a recommendation based on the review. So, yes, that could happen. Thank you. Not overturning an award, but they would just review whether the policies were followed and the statute was followed.

Thank you. So through the chair, was everyone given the opportunity? Everyone knew that they had the opportunity to file a bid protest if they were not in agreement. Is that correct, sir?

Yes. Through the chair, when the notice of recommended award is issued by the district, part of the notice is to provide that information to all the participants, uh, that they do have a right to file a bid protest.

Thank you very much, sir. Um, through the chair, If someone chooses not to go through with a bid protest, then at that point, what is it that they no longer have the ability to do? Is there something that they no longer have the ability to protest or at that point, if they've already decided not to do it, what happens?

Yes, through the chair. So during the course of the bid protest, if it's determined that the policies were not followed or if they feel that the policies were not followed or the specs were not, the specs which being the specifications on the solicitation were not followed, they of course would point that out. They have the right to point that out to the administrative law judge and to the tribunal. However, if they don't file a bid protest or if they don't move forward with the bid protest, if they withdraw the bid protest, then those issues cannot, at least legally through our procurement process, be properly raised.

Thank you. So through the chair, does that mean then that the ability to be able to raise a legal issue or a factual issue is no longer available through the chair?

Just through the chair, yeah, the issues that were raised as part of the bid protest, yes, those issues essentially would be waived in some respect, those particular issues, legal issues.

Thank you. And again, I'm asking you because you are our legal counsel and obviously we're dealing with issues that require to have the best information, not only from administration, but from you, our attorney. So my next question of concern, and I just want to make sure that I have the correct information, it was stated at one point that we might not be able to reach the timeline that we need to abide by. And so my question was, what is the deadline for the state for us to be able to negotiate? Because I'd like to have a deadline. I don't know. I don't know if there is one or not.

Through the chair.

Through the chair, with regard to, I think the chief financial officer referenced some issues with regard to the budget. So I would defer to him on that. particular question. Thank you. But as far as the policy is concerned, the policy is, as it relates to procurement of insurance products, the Board is following the policy at this point.

Thank you very much, Mr. General Counsel, sir. Yes, so, Dr. Baglos, again, I'm seeking answers because we're making a decision that's a very important one, very significant, and we need to have as many answers as possible so that we can proceed accordingly. So what is the deadline that the state has?

Through the chair, and good afternoon everyone, through the chair in this last legislative session, there were changes to the rules around the teacher salary increase allocation and how we collectively bargain it. And so historically, we've always been mandated to send our plan to the state by October 1st. That October 1st state deadline still exists. However, what was added this year is language around that TSIA creates a financial urgency. And that allocation must have an agreed upon distribution by 30 days after the budget being adopted. And if we don't have an agreed upon plan, one or both sides must declare impasse. Now historically, we don't bifurcate in Miami-Dade County Public Schools insurance and salary, which is why I believe Ron said that this conversation that's presently happening around healthcare makes that conversation foreseeably in July for the collective bargaining team extremely difficult.

All right. Thank you very much. Back to our board attorneys, Mr. General Counsel. Yes. As General Counsel to the board, as of right now, has the district abided by the policy, by the processes that we have in place by the regulations that we require. I know you all have attended the meetings, not you personally, but we have had legal teams there as well representing us. Have we complied with the requirements that we need to abide by, sir?

Yes, to the chair. Just to this point, yes, we have. Okay.

Thank you very much. I still have some more questions, but I'm not going to take more time right now. I heard my colleagues also have some questions. Today is not the day that we vote. We vote at the board meeting. It's imperative... that we gather all the information we need, and I'm sure all of us have gotten requests from the three different representatives that are here to meet with us, and any additional questions that we have for the sake of further clarity, because we're not experts in this arena, will be available during that period of time. We also have the opportunity as board members to meet again with Dr. Baglos, with Mr. Steiger, with the superintendent, with members of the team that have been involved in this because we want to make sure that once we make a decision, that that decision is one that is done based on the data and everything we have in front of us. But I do want to make sure, and this is why I want the listening public to hear very carefully, that transparency is very important. to all of us. And so that we dot every I and we cross every T, we do that I think with just about every decision that we make here on this board. And so that's why some of the questions that have been raised have been raised. But I feel more comfortable, much more so with our general counsel responding to the questions that I had, because I want to make sure that all those I's and T's that needed to be crossed in that arena were done and I believe that that has happened. So I'm looking forward to additional meetings with members of staff as well as others so that when we go to our board meeting on Wednesday then we will vote accordingly based on the data that each one of us has received and take it from there. So I believe Mr. Chair that the superintendent has been wanting to say something.

No, no, no, please. No, no, no, please. Are you done?

I think he wanted to say something based on something I said or not.

Oh, thank you. I'm done. Thank you, Mr. Superintendent. Go ahead. The floor is yours.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So as we move forward to Wednesday, right, if the If the will of the board is to kind of follow what the county did, like what Mr. Espino presented, I just wanted to just make sure that as we enter, we go into Wednesday, that we have three things that I'm going to need approval from the board, all right? Number one, our diligence is going to be make sure that the timeline of when this can be completed is within reason, and we will have the approximate timeline. I'll need that. I don't need an approval for that because that we can, before Wednesday, figure that out. What I do need approval for is if we go that route, the additional validation process is approved from the board regarding the expense that we will need. If it's under $50,000, but after above $50,000, we will need that. And then thirdly, I ask this very carefully because it's all about the negotiations and more importantly, the January 1st implementation. If the date of the July meeting is too late, I would ask consideration if we could have a special board meeting just for this healthcare component. Because what I'm hearing is, you know, at the end of the day, we have to be all in this together. I know that we, the committee, You know, one thing about our school district, we select committees. These members take it very seriously. They go through the process. Legally, all of our procurement process was executed correctly. However, reality is reality. If there are doubts pending and things are coming up and this is the route that the board would like to follow, then we need to incorporate those pieces within this board policy, within within this board item before we proceed. I just don't want to have those discussions at the board meeting because right now we know basically what we have to do. Get a timeline of completion, get approval for the expense associated with it, and then if a special board meeting is necessary prior to the July meeting, if we could do that as well.

Thank you. Thank you for your understanding. Board Member Geller?

A quick, through the chair, a quick follow-up to the superintendent. Obviously, we want to get this done, Mr. Superintendent. The question is for you. Obviously, we want to get this done as quickly as we can, but based on what you were just saying, to what extent is there an actual deadline by which the board Must act to give you the direction that you need Is it something that we must do with this meeting and you say it could be July it could be special To what extent if any is there a deadline or is it just we obviously want to get this done and settled as quickly as possible Through the chair, of course So that is the difficult question, right?

We have two deadlines We have two deadlines The first important deadline is that we have to make sure that we have healthcare by January 1st, right? But within this process that I believe the timeline is appropriate for the completion of the validation, we should be okay. That's why I'm asking for maybe an earlier special board meeting. The more complicated one, the more complicated one has to do with our ability to engage in collective bargaining. Dr. Baglow said it. We are a school district that do not bifurcate salary from health care. We've always done it together. And that's something that we would have to consider as we enter next week. We will try to provide more information regarding that piece.

Thank you. So colleagues, in light of the discussion, is it everyone's poison to maybe defer without, or to recommend, to transmit without a recommendation on E143? Can I understand a motion to recommend transmittable?

Move. Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed?

Yes, ma'am. I would just want to request this. I don't know if my colleagues want it. I would like all information of everything that was presented to the committee members so that I can review it myself through the chair.

Thank you so much. entertain a motion to approve, recommend approval of the rest of the items.

Move it.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? May I have a motion to bring the G items to the floor?

Move it.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Harvey, the floor is yours. G1, sir. Yes. Hold on one second. Hold on one second. I'd like to take a point of personal privilege and identify one of our now former colleagues who's sitting directly behind Mr. Fox, and I couldn't see him. Steve Gallen, the third. Thank you so much for being here. I don't know what's more weird, you sitting in the gallery or the fact that there's a bee item with your name on it next week. Look forward to, first of all, thank you for your service with us up here. Like I've said to other people, you've become one of my wingmen up here, so I'm going to miss you. And for the service that lies ahead of you, it's a brutal task that you're taking on to run essentially a county the size of some states. And we look forward to seeing you in that role. And don't forget about us when you get over there, all right? And make yourself available next Wednesday morning, please.

I'd be remiss if I didn't take a moment of personal privilege as well. Dr. Gallen, it's been truly an honour to serve alongside you for the past almost four years and I have to say I miss you up here. It doesn't feel the same but you will be missed but I know you will continue doing great things. Thank you. Thank you for your service to the board and to the children of Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the teachers and this whole family. Thank you. Madam Chair.

Yes, thank you. I've been mentioning you since we started the first meeting, the first workshop today. But to Dr. Gowan, we sat right where you are. when the two of us first got voted into this position in 2016. We have sat next to each other ever since, year in and year out, and we work very collaboratively together throughout the years. So it does feel very strange not to have you sitting right next to me as usual. But we are so extremely proud of you. We know the best is yet to come. Remarkable job, truly phenomenal. When you were on this board, you represented children, not just the children in your district, but students everywhere in a manner that really was admired and is admired by so many out there. You represented your teachers and the administrators, members of our workforce. You truly had the heart in the right place. And I know you will continue to do so. So when we go to the county for anything special, we're gonna go to Dr. Steve Gallen III. So congratulations, Godspeed, and many wonderful things I know are yet to come for you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry? Member Blanco.

We all have to take this opportunity. So as we were running through the meeting, I looked up and I saw him and I thought, why is he there? So actually, sunshine no longer applies, right? So I texted him and I said, I'm so happy to see you. We need to catch up. But honestly, truthfully, I'm so happy to see you there. And I was going to say this to you, but I'll say this publicly. I've truly learned so much from you, the wisdom, the knowledge that you bring, the eloquence with which you speak, and the advocacy. that you do, truly have learned, and it's been a pleasure working with you.

Thank you so much. I know it's been described as the end of an era. I think it is certainly that. It has been such a pleasure to get to serve with you, Dr. Gallin, and the rest of my colleagues. We're going to miss you so dearly. Thank you for always being a consensus builder, for always taking all of our loose ends and trying to bring it down to the action recommend and what we're going to amend and vote on, for always serving all children from birth Florida City to County line stay true to that when you're on the County Commission And just thank you for teaching me so many things since since I've been here We are so grateful for your service both in our schools. You've had such a long trajectory. It really is Started way before the board. This is just that last step before now you go countywide, which is very exciting so Please remember, and I need to get this quote right, because you say your dad told you all the time, right, about don't forget for where you came from when you get to where you're going. I know I butchered it, but you'll teach me the right way. But we're so grateful for you and wish you the best of luck. Congratulations on this next big step.

You're here. Board Member Geller.

Well, this may sound a little funny, and I want to be clear, I say it with due regard to my esteemed colleagues that I sit next to but having done like you did a whole bunch of graduation speeches I feel like in the last few weeks I feel like I could use some of those words today because in a real sense graduating from very serious responsibilities that this board has to what you're now going to be facing which is completely different I'll just echo the part about being excited for what you're about to undertake. I mean, for somebody who's never even served on that board, to have no one want to even oppose you, that just doesn't happen. So for everybody to say, everybody out there to say, oh yeah, Well, obviously, it's this guy. That just doesn't happen. So is that a reflection on what you've done on this board? It's a reflection of your life. So it's kind of, like I said, to me, it's kind of like your graduation. I mean, now you get to, you know, I mean, not that we don't have our problems here, and they're important, and they're very serious, but what you're undertaking... I'm just gonna sleep a little easier knowing that you're up there dealing with that stuff. So congratulations, my friend.

Dr. Brandos-Mendigo, can you bring us home?

How much time do I have? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can talk about Stevie better than anybody sitting up here.

That's right.

You can't call him Stevie, but I can call him Stevie. And I can let this be known, Dr. Gallin, When I was in the House of Representatives, when votes about certain educational issues, I would call Steve. He was the principal at our high school, Miami Northwestern Senior High School. I'm gonna miss you like you wouldn't believe. There was a saying, and I told you this, One of the Jacksons, Jackson 5, it was Michael who said it, but he was talking to one of the other ones who, good singer also. And he said, what am I going to do when I look through my right? You're not there.

How about one more time for Steve Gallen III? Now, Dr. Gallen, I know old habits die hard, but you don't have to stay for the rest of the committee meeting. God bless you, brother. Thanks so much for coming. See you next week. Mr. Harvey, G1, please.

Yes, through the chair. G1 is for final reading, amendments to policies governing standards of ethical conduct, as well as the code of ethics and employment and fingerprinting, as well as the payment of invoices. These are all follow-ups to an item that was brought by the chair regarding state auditor general audit findings from the 2024 through 2025 operational audit. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Again, this is final reading.

Colleagues, any comments, questions, concerns on G1? Seeing none, G3, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. G3 is for final reading. These are amendments to Policy 7460, Conservation of Natural and Material Resources. This is an item that's following up on an original item, H11, from the December 2025 meeting. regarding waste cost realignment and efficiency review brought by Board Member Santos. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you.

Seeing no comments, entertain motions to approve the Gs. So moved. To have a second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Thank you so much. Entertain a motion to move the H item to the floor. All in favor? H9. This is actually an item by Dr. Gallin, so his legacy continues. trust we've had an opportunity to review it succinctly put he wants to explore and review all policies associated with the potential development of workforce housing and infill housing in our district-owned properties which is a conversation we've been having on this board for feels like now three and a half three three three and a half years if there's any comments or concerns on the item co-sponsorship on it yeah okay Move to recommend approval as amended with the co-sponsorship. Do I have a second? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Okay. Contract extension report. Ms. Mumford. Colleagues, any comments on the contract extensions? Seeing none, thank you so much for the report. Legislative update. Oh, I'm sorry. We didn't do. Well, we still have time for new business. Legislative update. Mr. Olivari. who's tracking more frequent flyer miles to Tallahassee this year than ever before.

Hi, good afternoon. So through the chair, there were a couple legislative updates that were provided, one dated on May 29th regarding the budget agreement that had been reached, and then a follow-up on June 5th regarding the property tax reform legislation. So I will be open to any questions that anyone may have. Yes, Mr. Geller. How'd we do? That all depends on Mr. Steiger. What are your thoughts through the chair?

I think best, I mean, certainly I think we covered earlier not the worst case scenario.

Through the chair, yeah, and it was covered during the budget workshop earlier. We definitely feel that there were some good wins that we got this year. So thank you to everyone for their support this year, from the board, superintendent, to my boss, Mr. Bueno. I know that thank you so much for your support throughout the time and everyone else that provided that support to us.

Mr. Lewati, thank you so much for your time and certainly for the work that you did with you and your entire team up there. Obviously, extended legislative session and a precarious environment where I think we fared very well between the mitigation as well as avoiding the implications of potential significant tax reductions. I think one of the estimates that Ron mentioned was something like $600 million to us if some of these reforms would have impacted us, which I don't even know where that would have left us. So I think we've done well. Obviously, as we said during the budget workshop, we have our work to do, but just to show that we're in business, I appreciate your work. Colleagues, any new business?

Before you do, I had to walk out for a moment. I did not get to vote on the H items.

Okay. Entertain a motion to reconsider H9. Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Item is on the floor.

Yes, to co-sponsor the items.

Motion to amend the co-sponsorship? Move it. Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Motion to approve as amended. Do I have one?

Move it. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. There you go, Madam Chair. Thank you so much. So now, any new business?

Yes. Let me see. I do. One minute.

Yes. Yes, of course, four years.

Okay, so my new business has to do with a strategic plan for 2026-2031, which we adopted at the May 13th, 2026 board meeting via agenda item C2. I've addressed this but I still not really received, gotten the guidance regarding how are the agenda items presented for the board's consideration to be aligned with or reported against the newly adopted strategic plan because the new strategic plan is not organized around pillars anymore. And so it's unclear how those agenda items are going to be linked to the plan as we continue to move forward. So could someone please give me some clarification in this area? I've been trying to get that. We're still, you know, are we still linking the pillars right now that don't exist? How are we moving forward with the strategic plan process?

Mr. Chair, may I? Yes, Ms. Orhazan. I know this has been a concern of yours. We're now in the process of taking care of all of that. I think this is a matter of this month. Everything is happening so fast and so much is upon us. I met with Tiffany Pauline yesterday, and so we will be doing that. In addition to that, we have this... big component, which is to make the awareness of our community and our schools the portrait of a graduate and the attributes that we all selected as being very, not all of us, but the community. Everybody owns this. So we're in the process of aligning all that, so if you give us some time, it'll all come to place. It will be, and we have to now go basically by the goals, the broader goals, and kind of fit it in within the structure of board items and the concepts.

Thank you. So through the chair, also, I would hope that the board gets some kind of training or informative session so that we are cognizant of how we're moving forward with this arena.

Yes, Mr. Chair, may I? Ms. Rojas, absolutely. I think, in fact, one of the pieces of conversations we want you to provide input in terms of the alignment, the board, so that we're all doing this together.

Okay. Okay? Thank you.

Thank you so much.

No, thank you.

Well done. Colleagues, anybody else with new business? Entertain a motion to adjourn?

Move it.

Second. All in favor? Aye.

All right. For the next meeting, at what time? Board Member Bendros-Mendingo? If we could take a lunch break. Yes, ma'am. And why don't we come back at 1.30? Okay. 1.30. 1.30.

you