Stricter rules for when the Broward School Board can meet behind closed doors are now in place after complaints that the board may have violated the state’s open meetings law multiple times.
The School Board has met with district staff in several closed-door security sessions to discuss topics such as clear backpacks, school uniforms and an investigation of a school district employee, topics that many experts say don’t fall within the narrow security exemptions in the state’s Sunshine Law.
Under new rules drafted by General Counsel Marylin Batista, district staff who want to discuss a matter in a closed-door meeting would have to fill out a form ahead of time stating the reason, and it would be signed off by Batista, according to a May 19 email obtained by the South Florida Sun Sentinel through a public records request.
The superintendent must also sign off, Board Chairwoman Lori Alhadeff told the Sun Sentinel.
“As chair, I had a process established to ensure that we continue to follow all school board policies and state laws regarding closed-door sessions,” Alhadeff said in a text. “The process now requires that the General Counsel and Superintendent sign off on closed-door topics.”
The Sun Sentinel raised questions about why the School Board was holding closed-door security meetings on topics such as clear backpacks and school uniforms, when state law generally limits discussions to matters that could pose a danger if they were discussed in public.
The public first learned of the backpack discussions on May 5, when the district announced clear backpacks would be required in the fall — a plan that is now in limbo due to challenges. The school uniform proposal, which could take effect in 2024, became public when School Board member Brenda Fam wrote about it on her Facebook page May 12.
The closed-door meetings led to complaints by several school district advisory committees, who asked the district to seek an opinion from the state Attorney General’s office as to whether the meetings were legal.
When @BrowardESEad Chair Jacqui Luscombe asked @browardschools General Counsel Marylin Batista if committee could discuss clear backpacks in closed session since School Board did, Batista told her committee vote was needed for response. On Wed they voted they want A.G.’s opinion. https://t.co/8cLUspaXKX pic.twitter.com/4BfTpa82iX
— Scott Travis (@smtravis) May 18, 2023
After the Sun Sentinel learned that a personnel investigation of a safety employee also may have been improperly discussed during a closed-door meeting, the newspaper asked district spokesman John Sullivan on May 24 how the district planned to ensure improper discussions didn’t happen in the future. He denied anything improper happened at all.
“These claims on Sunshine Law violations are baseless and meritless. ALL School Board meetings, including closed-door sessions, follow board policies and state laws,” Sullivan said in a May 24 email. “While I cannot confirm what precisely was discussed during a closed-door session, specific personnel matters are not discussed.”
However, Batista indirectly acknowledged in a May 19 email to Board member Sarah Leonardi that questionable topics, including an investigation, had been discussed in at least one meeting, the Sun Sentinel learned this week through a public records request.
The School Board went into closed-door session to discuss security matters on May 17, the same day the Sun Sentinel article came out questioning the legality of previous security meetings. Board member Torey Alston asked Batista in public session if the board was legally allowed to go into a closed-door meeting, and Batista responded yes.
“However, once we were in closed-door session the two topics that were brought up were determined not to be within the parameters of the law,” Leonardi emailed Batista that day. “Please provide guidance on how we can avoid that in the future and what steps you are taking to ensure that in future closed-door sessions, the board is not breaking the law.”
Leonardi, reached by the Sun Sentinel, would not disclose what the two topics were, but Batista said in her response to Leonardi that one topic was related to an investigation.
Batista told Leonardi her response to Alston was “based on the law as to whether the Board could meet in a closed‐door session to discuss security matters. I was not privy to staff’s intent to present follow‐up relating to an investigation.”
Batista said in the email that she is working with Valerie Wanza, chief of staff to Interim Superintendent Earlean Smiley, to create a form that staff members must complete to request a closed-door session.
“I will also be apprised of the subject matter and will sign off on said form,” Batista said. “That form will have a list of the possible legal basis for a close‐door and the staff member will have to identify how it falls within that exemption.”
Batista also wrote she would be issuing a memo to board members and staff “detailing the legal grounds for a meeting of the board that excludes the public.”
“As you will see in the memorandum, some of the areas require the expertise of staff as it may be very technical in nature and I would not be able to make some factual decisions (for example, IT software issues that impact security),” she wrote. “I will also reiterate in the memorandum that a closed‐door session is not a substitute for bringing an item for consideration and vote by the Board.”
Alhadeff said Batista’s memo will be forthcoming.
Batista sent a memo to the board May 25 on another closed-door-related topic: whether board members were legally allowed to disclose information they had learned in closed-door sessions. Alhadeff asked Batista this question after seeing Fam’s social media post revealing the school uniform proposal that had only been discussed behind closed doors.
Batista responded with a short answer of no, that disclosing closed-door information was not allowed. But the memo later revealed it’s only a crime or ethics breach if it’s related to labor negotiations or if the information is used for a School Board member’s “personal gain or benefit or for the personal gain or benefit of any other person or business entity.”
Leonardi said she wants the district to have safeguards in place to ensure the topics discussed are legal in the first place.
“I have some concerns and those concerns remain after speaking with the Florida School Board Association,” she said. “I hope that we are able to implement additional training and processes to prevent that from happening again, and I hope we can take measures to rectify or cure those meetings.”
To correct most Sunshine violations, the remedy is to hold a do-over, or “cure” meeting, in public to recreate any discussions or actions that happened during closed-door meetings.
District officials have said there will be multiple public meetings that can resolve any issues related to backpacks and school uniforms. They say there’s no need to cure any discussions related to a personnel investigation.
“Again, ALL board meetings (closed doors included) follow all board policies and state laws,” Sullivan said. “Additionally, if an item is brought up in a closed-door session that is not permissible, our General Counsel immediately stops the item before it’s discussed. Therefore, it won’t be a violation of the Sunshine Law.”