LWV: A Report Card for the Sarasota County School Board

 

Sarasota County School Board Report Card

The League of Women Voters of Sarasota has established an Observer Corps to monitor the Sarasota County School Board meetings. The goal of the Observer Corps is to objectively evaluate meetings for ethical, legal and professional conduct on the part of the board and chairperson. This evaluation will be shared with the Board and the public following each meeting.

Meeting Date: March 19, 2024

A = Consistently   B= Frequently   C= Occasionally   D= Rarely   F= Not at All 

        

Board follows and advances a written agenda. The published agenda was amended for two action items to accommodate concerns raised by community members about potential conflicts of interest prior to the meeting    This was presented by the Superintendent and approved by the School Board.	A
Board limits citizens’ comments only to opinions on topics that are in the Board’s purview. Most citizen comments at this meeting were repeated requests to address concerns of inclusivity, book restrictions and the charter school approval of the previous meeting. Many comments addressed the proposed legislation to allow chaplains in schools. While this may be perceived to be not in the board’s purview prior to a legislative action, it was clear that community members wanted to urge board members to refuse to allow chaplains in our schools, should the governor sign the bill.  Comments urging the Board to build trust within the community continued from previous meetings.  Requests for the resignation of Ms. Ziegler also continued.	B+
Board Chair does not allow speakers to personally attack board members or use abusive language. The board chair stopped one speaker saying her comment “touched on the private life of the board member.”  It was not clear to the public how the comment related to abusive language or attacks on Board members.  Chair continues to allow attacks on Ms. Ziegler (hypocrite, fascist).	C+
Board Chair treats speakers equitably. The Board Chair appeared to make an effort to greet and thank each speaker.  She displayed less physical reaction to community speaker comments with which she appeared to disagree than in the previous meeting.  However, the Chair does not treat her colleagues equitably.  The chair interrupted Mr. Edwards several times as he was seeking clarification on issues raised by the public concerning conflicts of interest and other matters on the agenda.  She did not, however, interrupt Ms. Ziegler when she was commenting extensively without an apparent topic.  That disparity is very apparent to the public and leads to questions of motive and objectivity on the part of the Chair.	C
Board adheres to Robert’s Rules of Order. One of the tenets of Robert’s Rules of Order is that only one speaker speaks at a time and that only urgent matters are cause for interruption of the speaker.   There was a clear violation of that tenet by the Board Chair in interrupting Mr. Edwards.	D+
The Board Chair runs an orderly meeting. The chair did cut the mike for speakers who ran over their time.  However, she cut off a colleague and the colleague expressed frustration at being unsupported by the other members of the board.	C+
Board delegates operational and educational decisions to the professional staff. After one student spoke of harassment, the Chair asked the Superintendent if that was something he should follow up.  Several other speakers requested follow-up on certain administrative items and they were not referred to the Superintendent.	B+
Board gives evidence of being responsive to public comment. Board seems dismissive and uninterested in public comment and does not clearly address them.  They do however defend their positions.  Mr. Enos did attempt to explain why he voted yes on the charter school in response to community concerns.  Speakers often refer to never getting responses to emails sent to Board members.   Several citizens were upset and concerned about Ms. Ziegler’s prior comments about Equality Florida.  She never addressed that concern.  Community members express feelings of being demeaned when a board member comments that the public really does not understand an issue.	D+

Additional Comments:

It is apparent that individuals speaking at the Board meetings have done extensive research on topics brought before the Board.  The time and effort put into that research is apparently never recognized by the collective board.   In fact, it appears as though it is summarily dismissed.  

Also while most board members state publicly that they want to keep politics out of the Board room, at least two of the board members at this meeting proposed the appointment of district committee members that gave the public the impression of political placements.   Whether valid or not, the mistrust grows. 

Mr. Edwards made it clear in the board member comments at the end of the meeting that he does not feel support by his fellow colleagues.  He also said he felt the board attorney did not support him.  This is a concern.  

Recommendations:

If the Board truly wants to keep politics out of the board room, the board individually and collectively need to be aligned around being non-partisan in its decisions and act accordingly.   Seeding mistrust with direct actions that initiate public skepticism is keeping the district from moving forward.

The board needs to find a way to address the concerns raise in public comment, even if it’s only to say they will give the issue further study or to thank them for the research the public has done on various issues.  

If at all possible, Ms. Ziegler should remain in her seat during board meetings.  She has left in the past two meetings which might give the impression that the public comments are unimportant.  

Submitted by:  Sarasota League of Women Voters School Board Observer Corps.

 

Updates from SCAN's meeting at the Audubon Nature Center

Another good SCAN meeting on March 21st brought out many concerned about the Celery Fields, as well as others whose neighborhoods are under duress from developer proposals, including Heritage Oaks and the North Venice Neighborhood Alliance, Siesta Village, Sylvan Lea, Old Miakka, and more. 

At this meeting, Susan Schoettle presented an overview of the planning process -- we'll have a .pdf file of her power point presentation that all will have access to. And engineer Steve Suau spoke of the new flood maps that will be made public March 27. Many who will hear from their banks that they must purchase flood insurance -- but the maps will in many cases be inaccurate. Homeowners will need to do a map amendment to correct the errors.

Rob Wright speaking at the Nature Center 3.21.24

Siesta Key:

Many attended an online neighborhood workshop regarding a proposed mega-hotel from Gary Kompothecras near the south Siesta Key bridge on Wednesday, March 20. Many on the call asked penetrating questions showing they have closely studied the plan, the proposed parking, the site, the height of the proposed hotel and much more.

Two new stories from the News Leader:

Benderson revises proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments crafted to permit high-rise hotels on Siesta Sarasota News Leader

County Commission agrees to pay Ramirez $170,000 and second set of litigants $101,278.20 to wrap up hotel lawsuits filed in 2021  Sarasota News Leader

Hotel proposals seek reversal of Siesta Key legal victories after two-year court battle Herald Tribune

Celery Fields:

Members of public plead for county to purchase Smith Properties next to Celery Fields, but county’s Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources director says pending development deal forbids any intervention at this point Sarasota News Leader

Letter to Parks Director Nicole Rissler

Old Miakka

At the March 21 SCAN meeting at the Audubon Nature Center, Mike Hutchinson said he and Eileen Fitzgerald will appeal the latest court ruling that did not find a problem with Rex Jensen and Pat Neal paving the rural heritage area of East Sarasota County.

Letter to the County Commission concerning the history of Old Miakka from Becky Ayech.

Old Miakka Schoolhouse

And in the city:

CityPac will hold a candidate forum for city commission candidates. City residents are also concerned with overdevelopment, strange planning, and insider dealing. The forum at Selby Library is open to all. It's on Thursday, March 28 at 5 pm.

City Commission Candidate Forum

CityPac invites City of Sarasota Commission candidates to appear at Selby Forum.

 Will they?

l to r: Debby Trice, Mayor Liz Alpert, Erik Arroyo,
Kyle Battie, Jen Ahern Koch

March 28, 2024 

City Commission Candidate Forum

CityPAC is hosting a “job interview” with candidates who have filed to run for a seat on the Sarasota City Commission in the 2024 general election.  

The candidate forum will be held at the

Selby Public library (1331 First Street) 

Thursday, March 28  

5:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. 

The candidate forum is free and open to the public. Bring questions to submit.   

The 2024 election is for the seats for all of the city districts: district one, district two, and district three. All candidates who have filed to run for these seats and are seeking your votes have been invited to attend. 

Please see the CityPac website, citypac-srq.org, and the city website, https://www.sarasotafl.gov/government/city-auditor-and-clerk/elections/general-election-candidates-2024, for more details about the candidates.  

The elections for all three districts are held at one time, those for the two at-large seats are conducted in alternate elections in different years. 

LWV Expert Panel Discussion of this year's SMH Election

SARASOTA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL BOARD ELECTION:

Understanding the Issues

On April 8, 2024, from 6-7 pm at the Selby Library Gelbart Auditorium, the League of Women Voters of Sarasota County will present a panel of experts in the healthcare field to discuss the role of the SMH Board and how their decisions might impact the future of medical care in our community.

Currently there are two candidates of the same party running for Hospital Board At

Large Seat 1 and for Central District Seat 1. That means the August Primary could

become a Universal Primary, making it the final election for these two seats. In that

case, all voters would be able to vote; thus filling two of the four seats on this nine-

person board. At Large Seats 2 and 3 will be voted on in November.

According to Sarasota Memorial Hospital, “Of nearly 5,000 U.S. hospitals evaluated every year, SMH has repeatedly been recognized in the “50 Best Hospitals” for at least one medical specialty and rated among the nation’s top 10% for other high performing specialties, conditions and procedures.”  (August 1, 2023)

It is the responsibility of the Hospital Board to maintain or improve upon this level of excellence. Our panelists will cover all the issues at play in this year’s SMH Hospital Board elections including privatization of our public nonprofit hospital.

Our panel of experts includes:

Sandra Stuart, Sarasota Memorial Hospital Foundation. Former Assist. Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs.

Sandi Stuart is a former senior partner at the public affairs/lobbying firm Clark Weinstock, which has represented Fortune 100 companies in the fields of healthcare and technology.  Sandi currently serves on the board of Mote Marine Laboratory, is immediate-past chair of Florida House in Washington, D.C. She holds a B.A. from the University of North Carolina. Sandi joined the Healthcare Foundation in 2020.

Kirk George Voelker, MD. Pulmonologist, Medical Director of Sarasota Memorial Health Care System’s Clinical Research Center

Dr. Kirk Voelker is a practicing Pulmonologist and the Medical Director of Sarasota Memorial Health Care System’s Clinical Research Center. He studied Biomedical Engineering at the University of Florida with medical residencies at Orlando Regional Medical Center and UC/Irvine. He is an associate professor at Florida State University College of Medicine (Sarasota) and President of Citizens for Healthcare Excellence. 

Alan Unell, PhD researches healthcare systems and policies and publishes the daily newsletter “Healthcare Advocacy”.

Mr. Unell has a doctorate from Northwestern University in Mathematics.  He has taught Mathematics at Northwestern, Princeton, and Rider Universities. Over the last 30 years  he has also taught Mathematics, Design of Experiments, Statistics, Six Sigma Techniques, and Software Design for a variety of aerospace firms including Hughes Aircraft, Raytheon and the Aerospace Corporation. Dr. Unell became interested in healthcare reform when his daughter was diagnosed with Lupus.  He has researched healthcare systems and policies for the last 5 years and has lectured on healthcare reform for several years. 

This event will also be live-streamed on our Facebook page where a recording will be posted. For more information and to register for in-person attendance visit

LWVSRQ.org 

*   *   *   *   *   *

Listen to WSLR's preview of the Hospital Board election here.

Sarasota LWV publishes "Report Card" on the county's School Board

 

Sarasota County School Board Report Card 

The League of Women Voters of Sarasota has established an Observer Corps to monitor the Sarasota County School Board meetings. The goal of the Observer Corps is to objectively evaluate meetings for ethical, legal and professional conduct on the part of the board and chairperson with respect to the public comment session and the meeting agenda. This evaluation will be shared with the Board and the public following each  meeting. 

Meeting ate:  

A = Consistently B= Frequently C= Occasionally D= Rarely F= Not at All  

Board follows and advances a written agenda.	A
Board limits citizens’ comments only to opinions on topics that are in the Board’s purview.  Some comments are not in the Board’s purview. Asking Ms. Ziegler to stay on, for  example, is not while asking the Board to write to the governor for her removal is.  Biblical references and prayer are not. Stopping a “woke” agenda is not. A perceived  agenda by some board members to reduce or eliminate public education is not, but it  does fall within the board’s purview to address any action or decision that speakers  link directly to these concerns.	C
Board Chair does not allow speakers to personally attack board members or use abusive language.  The chair does not consistently stop attacks on board members. Many commentators  continue to attack Ms. Ziegler and the comment, “Ask the groomer” was a personal  attack on Mr. Edwards. Ms. Marinelli came under fire for comments at the previous  meeting. Some comments walk a fine line between attack and constructive  information. We realize it is enormously difficult to walk that fine line but would hope  that the chair would be vigilant in this matter.	C
Board Chair treats speakers equitably.  The chair has a noticeably different response to speakers she appears to agree with  versus those she does not. Some are greeted with a welcome; others not. The tone  of voice in her “thank you” varies depending on the speaker. Some commenters get  more attention and eye contact by board members than others. Audience applause is   handled differently…ignoring some and closing down the meeting for another.	C-

Board adheres to Robert’s Rules of Order.  As was said after the last meeting, according to Roberts Rules of Order personal  attacks, name calling (groomer), and abusive language is not to be tolerated.	B
The Board Chair runs an orderly meeting.	C+
Board delegates operational and educational decisions to the  professional staf.  There were several opportunities during the meeting when citizen’s comments could  have been referred to administrative staff for follow-up. Teacher and students  offered specific concerns which lent themselves to further follow-up and the board  chair did not make those referrals. At previous meetings, more issues were referred  to administration.	B
Board gives evidence of being responsive to public comment. At each meeting, citizens are telling the board that they are not hearing the citizens’  concerns. Speakers continue to bring up issues that are dismissed as being  inaccurate. More often, however, they are ignored completely during the time when  board members have their turn to respond to citizens’ comments.	D+

Additional Comments: 

Two new categories were added to this Report Card this time -- one regarding the equal treatment of citizens who comment and another regarding the board’s response to public comment. We realize how difficult the work of  a school board member is and appreciate how seriously members take on the responsibility of helping educate  every child every day. We hope you will give each citizen equal attention and courtesy, listen to their concerns and suggestions, refer issues to school administration when necessary, and respond thoughtfully to the  speakers when you are able.  

We would ask board members to confine their comments to the work of the board. We feel that the comments  of one board member regarding Equality Florida and changing the narrative had nothing to do with the work at  hand. Comments such as these make us question whether any attempt is being made to project an image as a  thoughtful, non-political board. 

There was huge public outcry related to the approval of a charter school, and many speakers spoke of their  serious concerns. The public learned one board member had requested a special workshop to take a careful  look at the concerns but that request was denied by the board chair. This leads to mistrust and skepticism of  board motives. 

Recommendations: 

The board might consider whether meetings would be more productive if public comment before the business  meeting was restricted to agenda items only. After the business meeting, general comments could be heard.  When the board is aware that a certain agenda item is controversial or generating significant public interest,  time should be allotted to allow more public input. 

Submitted by: Sarasota League of Women Voters School Board Observer Corps.