►
From YouTube: December 6, 2016 Special Board Workshop
Description
See the agenda here: http://agenda.oneclay.net/publishing/ap-agendas.html
A
A
Statement
says:
welcome
citizens
play
County
I
want
to
take
this
opportunity.
Thank
you
for
taking
the
time
out
of
your
busy
schedule
to
attend
the
school
board
special
meeting.
The
meeting
is
our
opportunity,
as
your
elected
representatives,
to
cleverly
to
collaborate,
opening
and
make
decision
that
will
decide
the
future
direction
of
our
public
schools
and
education
of
our
children
here
at
Lake
County.
If
you
wish
to
address
the
board,
there
will
be
an
opportunity
to
speak
in
the
minutes
of
card
which.
A
Indicate
this
specific
item
there's
only
one
item
to
speak
on
and
turn
it
in
your
participation
is
welcomed
and
appreciated.
So
thank
you
for
coming
this
morning.
The
reason
that
I
called
this
special
meeting
at
our
November
22nd
school
board
meeting
was
for
one
one
item
to
address
one
reason
on
our
agenda.
A
B
A
A
So
we
received
acclaim
from
Miss,
dr.,
Susie
Saylor
and
in
it
there
were
allegations
that
I
think
everybody
read
it.
We
all
know
allegations
that
some
of
our
administrators
were
Cobie
students
incorrectly
in
to
ESC.
This
was
affecting
our
graduation
rate
and
I
guess
the
federal
funds
that
we
receive.
A
She
said
that
she
brought
it
to
the
superintendent's
attention
on
several
times
and
he
did
not
address
it.
Dr.
Susan
Saylor
reported
her
complaint
to
us,
but
also
to
the
Office
of
Inspector
General,
so
this
I
feel
was
handled
incorrectly.
The
letter
that
we
see
from
the
Office
of
Inspector
General
states
that
if
the
school
board
is
unwilling
or
unable
to
address
this,
that
we
need
to
notify
them
and
they
will
do
and
investigation.
Mr.
Sykes
had
orange
tea.
Mrs.
mr.
A
Kenan,
our
former
chairman,
took
it
upon
herself
to
act
solely
independently
and
address
this
and
gave
it
to
the
superintendent
without
bringing
it
to
the
board.
We
are
the
governing
body
of
my
County
school
board
and
collectively
we
as
a
board
should
have
decided
what
to
do
with
this.
She
gave
it
to
the
superintendent
and
instructed
him
to
investigate.
He
sent
it
to
HR
and
right.
There
I
find
our
first
problem
because
our
director
or
assistant
superintendent
HR,
is
named
in
the
complaint,
so
I
don't
feel
that
was
handled
appropriately.
A
He
forward
it
to
our
school
board
attorney
and
it
does
Sarah
school
has
formed
a
policy
to
us.
It
does
say
in
our
policy
that
anti
fraud
being
reported
to
the
Office
of
Inspector,
General
or
or
the
school
board
attorney
so
he's
absolutely
right
when
he
says
that
it
can
be
reported
to
him.
However,
this
an
individual
employee
chose
not
to
report
it
to
him
as
she
reported
to
the
Office
of
Inspector
General.
So
right
there
are
lies
another
problem.
As
far
as
I'm
concerned,
I've
turned
it
up
our
policies.
A
I
know
it's
been
pointed
to
us
by
our
school
board
attorney
in
the
past
policy.
2.35
D
is
what
mr.
Sykes
has
referenced
and
it
does
say
in
policy
2.5
to
all
employees
of
the
district,
have
an
affirmative
obligation
to
report
fraud
to
their
supervisors
or,
if
the
circumstance
it's
directly
to
the
superintendent
of
schools,
if
the
observe
or
suspected
fraud
or
fraudulent
activity
involved
is
the
board
member
or
the
superintendent.
The
report
should
be
made
to
the
school
board's
attorney
or
the
state
of
Florida's
chief
inspector
general.
A
It
then
goes
on
to
say
any
employer
reports
abroad.
Even
states
shall
not
be
subject
to
recriminations
or
having
made
report
whistleblower
protection
may
apply
and
it
continues
on.
This
is
what's
been
quoted
to
us
in
the
last
couple
months
since
we've
been
dealing
with
this
and
it
is
accurate,
it
can
go
to.
The
school
board.
Attorney,
however,
was,
like
I,
said
this
employee
informative.
You
know.
A
General,
in
this
case,
they
chose
to
report
it
to
the
state's
o
IG,
because
she
obviously
did
not
trust
the
school
board
attorney
or
feel
comfortable
with
them,
and
since
the
report
to
the
OIG
it
triggers
us
then
to
go
to
statute
one
zero,
zero.
One
point
two,
which
legally
makes
the
people
responsible
for
investigating
our
internal
policy
does
not
supersede
state
law.
A
The
second
policy
that
mr.
Sykes
has
quoted
to
us
is
two
point,
one
seven,
eight
four
and
that
talks
about
investigations
and
investigations
in
I'll
read
it.
It
says
investigations
of
complaints
against
employees
shall
be
the
responsibility
of
the
superintendent
schools.
Such
investigations
shall
be
rewarded
by
human
resource
division.
Well,
it
can't
be
the
responsibility
of
the
superintendent
when
the
claim
is.
The
claimant
is
accusing
him
of
some
and
it
can't
go
to
our
vision
of
human
resources,
our
assistant
superintendent
of
human
resource
that
was
also
named
in
it.
A
So
all
investigations
of
employees
shall
be
conducted
by
HR,
but
not
the
board
attorney,
even
if
it's
reported
to
him
under
2.35
fraud
policy.
In
this
case
of
a
charge
named
in
the
complaint,
so
it
should
have
been
sent
to
the
state
immediately
to
reserve
integrity.
So
I
guess
what
I'm
really
asking
the
board
and
what
I'm
extremely
uncomfortable
about
is
how
this
is
all
been
handled
because
I
feel
like
it
gives
the
impression
that
there's
a
cover-up
taking
place
about
if
we
sit.
A
We're
in
agreement
so
I'd
like
to
ask
the
board
to
ask
the
Office
of
Inspector
General
to
do
an
independent
investigation,
regardless
of
what
this
investigation
that's
been
conducted
shows
I.
Just
don't
feel
that
it's
been
a
that
accurate
I.
Myself
have
had
people
come
before
us
and
before
me
call
me
up
and
tell
me
that
they
haven't
been
interviewed.
They
have
information
to
share
that
there
was
truth
and
what's
been
reported
and
there
others
have
been
afraid
to
tell
the
truth.
So
I'm
very
concerned
about
this.
A
A
E
Come
before
the
discussion,
I
did
want
to
point
out
a
couple
of
things
because
I
was
I
did
represent.
One
of
our
folks
who
went
in
for
the
investigation
to
be
interviewed
for
the
investigation
and
I
will
say
that
it
was
an
interview
and
in
time
were
those
folks
sworn
in
they
weren't
told
this
was
the
deposition,
so
I
was
there.
E
The
process
included
a
printout
of
questions
and
the
questions
were
the
same
for
each
person
that
came
in
the
two
folks
that
were
doing
the
investigation,
one
of
them,
the
lady
introduced
herself
as
being
a
former
superintendent
of
schools.
Again
at
that
point,
I
thought
to
myself
that
just
that
just
does
not
smell
good.
E
It
didn't
pass
the
sniff
test
for
me,
so
we
went
through
the
process
and
our
member
had
me
there
just
because
she
wanted
to
feel
secure
and
make
sure
that
she
didn't
have
any
responsibility
or
any
anything
come
back
on
her
later.
I
will
tell
you,
though,
that
I
have
I
mean
Susan
did
come
to
dr..
Salado
did
come
to
us
because
she
is
a
member
of
the
Union
when
this
all
took
place,
and
she
did.
We
did
talk
about
the
fact
that
it
needed
to
go
to
that
Oh
IG.
She
did
talk
about
that.
E
She
was
concerned
about
the
district,
doing
their
own
investigation
in
that
time
frame.
We
had
numerous
folks
call
us
and
tell
us
that
they
had
information
about
this,
that
they
wanted
to
speak,
and
we
made
recommendations
as
a
union
to
say
why
don't
we
put
something
out
there,
some
sort
of
hotline
some
simmer
away
for
our
folks
to
be
able
to
you
feel
like
they
can,
let
someone
know,
and
if
that
is
worthy
of
any
type
of
investigation,
whatever
they
should
report,
then
whoever
is
doing
a
sensible
go
down
that
route.
E
If
they
feel
it
is
not,
then
they
won't
that
never
happened
so
people
the
door
was
never
opened
for
people
to
come
forward.
The
lady
that
was
doing
the
investigation
told
me
that
she
had
been
given
a
list
of
names
and
that
those
were
the
people
that
would
be
coming
in
I
asked
about
two
people
that
I
knew
had
come
to
me.
That
did
give
me
permission
to
be
to
use
their
name,
and
she
said
that
neither
of
those
were
on
her
list.
E
It
was
told
that
again
folks
complain
to
me
saying
there
was
never
an
invitation
to
others
who
weren't
on
the
list
to
come
forward
and
speak
about
their
knowledge,
and
one
witness
has
stated
to
me
that
she
did
give
first-hand
knowledge
effects
that
she
had
about
an
incident.
So
there
was
no
backup
on
this
agenda.
So
I
don't
know
if
that
that
the
report
reflects
that
also
I
wanted
to
ask
to
take
any
data
was
pulled
aside.
My
one
minute
mark.
E
A
E
B
A
Calls
that
I've
thought
about
it.
It
just
concerns
me
that
we
need
to
clear
the
big
name
and
if
there's
nothing
there,
fine,
but
we
need
to
have
an
independent
investigation
done
from
somebody
outside
our
district.
Who
has
no
ties
to
our
district
that
that
the
team
is
not
chosen
by
someone
within
our
district.
You
know
the
inspector
general's
office
will
come
out.
It
won't
cost
us
anything
to
have
them
come
out
and
do
an
independent
investigation.
F
F
The
Spector
general
is
gonna
want
to
see
what
report
has
already
been
reflected
and
done.
Good
sensory
since
ad
has
been
completed
a
better
course
of
action
that
I
would
recommend
to.
You
is
if
you
think
that
there
are
something
that
is
short-sighted
or
missing
from
the
report,
I
would
submit
that
the
superintendent
sends
to
the
respective
your
own.
F
The
report
that's
been
done
and
then,
if
you
want
to
list
separately
as
the
chairman
of
the
board,
concerns
and
shortcomings
that
you
have
and
invite
them
to
further
investigate
it,
you
can
have
your
cake
and
eat
it
too.
There.
The
the
bottom
line
of
it
is
is,
if
you
reject
the
the
report
which
I
haven't
seen
it,
but
I've
been
advised
by
mr.
Davis
that
there's
no
finding
a
problem
cause.
F
If
you
reject
the
report
and
say
we
want
you
to
come
in
and
do
something
entirely
separate
and
don't
pay
attention
this,
it's
kind
of
looking,
it's
not
gonna,
look
object
and
it's
going
to
look
subject
and
at
what
you're
looking
for
result,
not
the
truth.
So
if
you
had
problems
with
report,
then
I
would
recommend.
F
Have
the
superintendent's
in
the
letter
to
the
Inspector
General,
saying
here's
the
copy
of
the
report
and
then
you
as
the
chairman
of
board
or
any
other
member
of
the
board,
can
send
a
letter
to
the
inspector
general
saying
these
are
the
concerns
that
I
have
I,
invite
you
to
do
further
inquiry,
if
you
so
choose,
because
at
all
times
through
this,
the
inspector
general
is
the
one
that
has
the
jurisdiction
on
it.
They've
never
lost
jurisdiction.
F
They
asked
us
to
look
into
it
and
it's
been
looked
into
and
I
take
umbrage
on
some
of
the
statements
of
the
orb
how
this
occurred.
They
Brosky
did
not
give
me
the
thing
that
asked
me
to
do
anything
when
the
information
came
to
me,
having
looked
at
2.35
having
gone
and
looked
at
the
overall
thing,
I've
made
the
statement.
Two
people
have
jurisdiction
over
this.
The
inspector
general's
office
remind
myself.
They
basically
they've
already
assumed
jurisdiction.
They
sent
it
back
to
me.
That's
my
view
of
the
the
rule
under
2.35.
F
I
knew
one
of
the
problems
that
you
have
with
this
case
is.
It
goes
back
to
2014
when
the
the
the
ESC
allegations
are
made
during
that
time
frame.
My
there's
predecessor
counsel
was
the
attorney
at
the
time
I'm
on
it,
we've
been
actively
participating
with
TSE,
so
there's
no
way
that
the
the
attorney
should
have
actually
individually
done
it.
So
we
saw
a
way
forward.
We
asked
fans
to
do
it,
and
and
I
I
basically
was
not
directed
by
by
either
the
superintendent
or
by
the
Chairman
ward.
I
advised
this
route.
F
This
is
the
proper
route.
I
advised
them
to
go
to
fads.
Another
thing
I'd
like
to
say
about
the
pads
investigation.
None
of
that
I
mean
mr.
Van
Zant's
gone,
so
there
is
no
hierarchy.
That's
leveraging
down
on
people
to
to
not
answer
questions,
I
I,
don't
know
where
that's
coming
from.
If,
however,
you
think
that
people
have
not
had
the
opportunity
to
be
honest
and
forthright
and
forthcoming,
then
I
would
note
that
in
the
letter
to
the
inspector,
whatever
concerns
you
have
but
I
think
you
need
to
specify
time
dates
and
places.
F
Be
it's
easy
to
say.
Well,
I
heard
this
and
I
heard
that.
Well,
if
you
think
somebody
specifically
hasn't
had
their
their
their,
your
statement
made
specifies
who
didn't,
who
wasn't
hurt,
specify
the
date
time
place
and
specify
the
fact
that
they
weren't
given
the
opportunity
to
participate
in
this
investigation.
Lastly,
during
the
investigation,
you
don't
always
swore
people
in
as
a
matter
of
fact,
very
rarely
do
you
during
investigation.
Do
you
swear
somebody
in
while
you're
taking?
That
is
a
choice
of
the
investigator
it
does?
F
It
is
not
necessarily
required
investigators
every
time
they
talk
to
witness
they
don't
always
for
them
that
and
I'm
going
in
in
the
Army
I'm
going
off
on
Jane,
where
I'm
going
to
act
as
a
judge
on
the
case,
we
have
an
administrative
investigation
and
in
that
investigation,
partly
anybody
has
given
a
sworn
statement.
It's
not
how
that
works
in
the
Ministry
of
investigation.
So
the
fact
that
people
weren't
sworn
in
does
not
by
definition,
mean
that
the
investigation
wasn't
done
properly.
F
So
in
some
way
my
recommendation
is
you
forward
the
results,
because
they're
gonna
want
for
an
inning
out
and
if
you
don't
forward
it
to
them,
they're
gonna,
say
you're,
trying
to
hide
the
ball
forward,
the
results
to
them
and
allow
any
member
of
the
board
or
anybody
else
to
write
a
letter
to
inspector
saying
what
you
think
the
shortcomings
are,
but
if
you're
gonna,
if
you're
gonna,
let
shortcomings
be
specific,
because
I
can
always
say
all
right.
I
heard
this
person
that
person
didn't
do
this,
that
that
tells
them
nothing
give
them.
A
A
F
Well,
what
I'll
recommend
that
is?
I'm
gonna
write
a
letter
because
I'm
the
one
that's
one
contact
saying
and
I
have
to
have
already
shared
with
mr.
barofsky
saying
here's
a
results,
investigation
for
free
view.
You
take
your
further
steps
and
many
people
think
I
got
a
copy
of
that,
but
I'll
distribute
it,
but
basically
here's
the
here's,
the
investigation.
We
leave
it
to
you
to
review
and
make
any
further
decision
that.
F
The
point
of
it
is
that
you
got
to
be
careful
about
trying
it.
You
know,
there's
a
difference
between
object
on
the
subject.
There's
objectives:
here's
investigation
it
is,
it
says
what
it
says
subject.
It
is
I,
don't
like
it,
because
it
doesn't
find
the
result
that
I
want
I
want
a
different
result,
but.
A
G
H
H
A
F
G
J
G
B
I
F
G
They
see
fit
absolutely
I,
get
my
gut
I
guess
I'm
still
talking
about
her
questioning
the
the
for
want
of
a
better
word,
the
allegations
that
some
of
the
teachers
were
coached
by
their
principals.
So
if
a
if
the
investigator
came
in
and
told
the
principal
I
wanted
to
interview
the
following
five
people
on
Wednesday,
just
using
that
as
an
example,
obviously
the
principal
is
going
to
go.
G
Those
five
people
say
you're
going
to
be
investigating
and
you're
going
to
be
talking
to
this
investigator
or
whatever
I
mean
in
print
I
can't
say
that
you
know
statement.
But
if
that's
the
case,
then
I
can
see
where
we
might
want
to
bring
forward
other
means
and
you're
talking
specifics.
If
we
know
of
specifics,
these
people
did
not
get
to
be
get
any
information
right
forward
and
I.
Guess,
like
my
concern,
is
it
is
really
different,
uniquely
different
from
the
group
of
people
that
were
talked
to
or
that
were
interviewed.
F
I
may
follow
my
one
I
think
if,
if,
in
fact,
there
are
witnesses
that
were
Tantalus
that
were
threatened,
it
works.
Ok,
that's
criminal,
okay,
and
so,
if
if
in
fact
there
somebody
has
evidence
to
suggest
or
believe
that
something
criminals
have
then
I
fully
recommend
that
they
take
it.
The
Clay
County
Sheriff's
Office
because
they
have
the
jurisdiction
independent
of
the
IG.
F
F
B
F
H
Grunt
change
your
question.
Miss
Cola,
seven
principles
were
interviewed,
the
super
tip
was
interviewed.
What
Eocene
director
was
interviewed,
the
assistant
superintendent
HR
was
was
interviewed.
Five
high
five
school
staffing,
specialist
mentor,
viewed
won
ESC
secretary,
one
D
se
teacher
three
assistant
principals,
one
behavior
management
specialist,
one
director
of
professional
development
and
one
former
principal
was
interviewed
as
well.
H
C
A
I
I
I
I
I
have
heard
about
intimidation
of
employees
who
were
fearful
for
their
jobs.
As
you
said,
annual
contract
people
and
the
truth
of
the
matter
is
I
mean
mr.
Davis
is
always
talking
about
transparency,
I,
think
transparency
is
there,
but,
most
importantly
in
this
issue
to
get
it
settled
once
and
for
all
this
letter.
That
goes,
of
course,
this
report
should
be
sent
to
the
inspector
general
but
I
think
not
separately
from
the
letter
from
this
board
or
whoever
on
this
board
wants
to
participate
and
I
certainly
would
participate
in
this
I.
I
I
The
intimidation
factor
is
what
I'm
concerned
about
here:
I
think
that
there
are
people
who
have
been
very
afraid
to
speak
for
fear
of
their
jars
and
I
think
it's
time
to
clean
this,
that
it
let
the
chips
fall
where
they're
made
and
then
go
on
and
do
our
job.
But
we
can't
have
this
said
the
code
of
silence.
I
mean
this.
This
sounds
it's.
What
someone
wants?
Listen
to
this
this.
Just
it's
not
a
good
thing,
but
I
just
want
the
truth.
I
Whatever
the
truth,
is
it
and
then
we'll
deal
with
the
truth,
but
it
troubles
me
too
to
do
wrong.
I
feel
in
my
heart
of
hearts
that
there
are
employees
who
are
knowledgeable
of
things
that
they
have
been
reluctant
to
come
forward,
and
you
know
I
don't
know,
got
a
list
of
things.
I
have
no
idea.
I've
been
sitting
and
waiting
just
like
the
rest
of
us,
but
I
think
that
we
can't
just
turn
our
head
and
say
what
would
that
there
is
a
report
and
that's
it
and
it's
done
with.
I
To
me,
what's
in
the
report
or
not
I,
don't
think
that
the
entire
truth
has
come
out
yet
and
it
troubles
face.
I
think
we'd
have
to
be
transparent
on
this,
for
the
good
name
of
this
school
district
I
think
there
are
people
who
maybe
feel
that
they
have
been
done
accused
of
things
they
have
not
done
and
and
I
hate
that
but
and
I
think
that
their
employees,
who
are
fearful
that
they
did
what
they
were
directed
to
do
and
they're
fearful
for
their
jobs.
I
As
a
board
member,
we
have
to
look
out
for
the
best
interest
of
the
school
district.
I.
Don't
think
we
could
just
close
the
book
and
say
well,
that's
there
we've
gotten.
We.
We
must
at
least
try
to
get
the
facts
of
the
matter
out,
so
that
we
can
prevent
anything
like
this
from
ever
taking
place
again.
If
it
in
fact
was
taking
place,
we've
just
got
to
clean,
clean
it
up,
get
and
start
over
I
think
under
mr.
Davis's
leadership.
K
K
A
Prior
to
this
last
election
people
were
afraid
to
speak
up
I'm,
fearful
of
losing
their
jobs.
Now
it's
kind
of
a
new
day
and
I
think
people,
you
know,
since
the
election
I
got
more
focus
just
this
last
few
days,
I've
gotten
this
code
of
silence.
Someone
called
me
yesterday
and
said
you'd
be
shocked
that
you
knew
what's
going
on
after
hours
and
the
meetings
that
were
taking
place
to
script.
What
everybody
said.
A
But
it
was
and
I'm
not
going
to
name
the
person
who
said
I
don't
mean
to
let
that
person
come
forward
on
their
own
when
this
investigation
is
done
but
I
agree.
The
report
has
to
be
said
about
Sykes
a
completely
that
there
should
be
an
accompanying
letter,
because
mrs.
Stoddard
said
with
it
from
this
board
that
we
would
request
additional
interviews
and
additional
information
that
when
they
make
a
ruling
for
the
Office
of
Inspector
General,
our
Commissioner
of
Education
has
a
final
I
mean.
K
Specific
people
to
be
interviewed,
I,
don't
know
I,
just
and
I
feel,
like
the
fear
factor,
I
mean
I've
been
in
a
very
litigious
industry.
I
know
what
depositions
are
all
about
and
how
intimidating
they
are
truthfully.
It
wasn't
actually
your
boss,
most
people,
either
deposition
in
tears
because
it's
very
intimidating
you
question
everything
that
you've
ever
done
in
your
career,
so
I,
just
I,
guess
for
me
personally,
I
won't
see
the
fear
factor
being
removed
by
having
another
investigation,
keep.
B
K
A
F
F
Were
good
basic
contact
information,
here's
the
allegations
in
basic
contact
information
and
a
lot
of
free
rein
to
go
to
the
interview,
whoever
they
wanted.
They
were
not
given
a
list
and
say
this
is
the
bad
guy
I
disagree
with
that?
That's
not
how
the
investigation
works
at
all.
It's
the
never
given
contact
information,
they
were
given
the
allegations
and
they
were
getting
free
rein
to
fall
it
whatever
way
they
want.
They
did
not.
They
were
not
given
a
listing.
Only
talk
to
these
people.
K
It's
as
fair
as
there's
going
to
be
that
these
investigations
aren't
simple,
they're
very
complicated
and
regardless,
like
I,
decided,
if
there's
a
fear
factor,
there's
an
intimidation
factor
being
questioned.
So
I
tend
to
think
that
what
the
report
we
received
is
acceptable.
I
don't
see
flaws
and
worthy
of
asking
for
a
second
investigation.
But
if
that's
what
the
majority
of
the
board
masturbated.
A
D
I
think
thoughts.
One
is
I
think
that,
regardless
of
what
has
gone
on
in
the
past,
we
do
have
mr.
Davis's
leadership
now
I
know
from
just
watching
TV
that
he
has
experience
dealing
with
BSE
problems
in
a
district
in
his
on
his
resume
and
has
fixed
those
under
his
watch.
So
I
think
that
going
forward
we
are
going
to
be
much
better
regardless
because
he
has
that
experience
that
he
can
bring
from
another
district
to
put
into
our
district
so
and
end
processes
will
change
what
the
findings
that
this
would
be.
D
Having
just
sat
through
our
annual
required
ethics
training
on
Friday
of
last
week.
Listening
to
the
gentlemen
who
came
this
book
from
the
FBI
it
ran,
it
ran
through
my
mind.
It's
just
unbelievable
in
today's
world,
with
social
media
and
everything
to
do
is
run
video
and
that
kind
of
thing
that
anyone
would
do
any
kind
of
attempt
any
kind
of
corruption
or
intimidation
or
things.
But
the
fact
the
matter
is
because
of
the
way
that
the
gentleman
described
not
only
his
job
but
his
whole
unit.
He
leave.
D
It
clearly
goes
on
in
our
country,
and
that's
disturbing
to
me,
I
would
I
would
be
I
do
think
we
do
to
move
on
as
a
district
and
move
forward.
I
think
that
we're
in
the
business
of
educating
children
and
that's
where
we
want
to
focus
our
time
and
efforts
and
money,
so
I
would
agree
with
you
on
that,
but
it
is
I
would
be
okay
with
mr.
Sykes
recommendation
of
sending
this
report
with
with
the
letter
that
says
that
we
believe
these
people
inadvertently
we're
left
out
of
the
investigation
of
it.
D
We
don't
know
intentionally
that
they
were
left
out,
but
that
we
believe
these
people
could
have
wind
additional
information,
and
let
me
get
let
the
inspector
general's
office
make
the
decision
of
where
to
go
further
from
that,
whether
he
should
have
been
our
key
or
the
staff
should
investigate
that
further
or
if
they're
going
to
accept
it.
I
do
want
to
be
careful
as
a
district
that
we
respect
the
the
two
former
superintendents
and
school
board.
D
Regardless
of
the
back
story
that
you
told
about
how
this
all
came
about,
I
do
think
they're,
very
reputable
individuals
and
their
their
resumes
stand
for
themselves
and
I
don't
feel
like
they
were.
Just
you
know
a
single
shingle
stuck
it
out,
said
I'm
an
investigator
who
hired
me.
You
know
I,
think
they
come
with
very
good
qualifications
and
I
do
want
to
be
careful
as
a
district
that
we
don't
diminish
the
work
that
they
did
and
pay
for
with.
B
G
B
G
Yes,
I
agree
wholeheartedly
with
you.
That's
two
sending
the
report
forward,
including
a
letter
indicating
that
there
may
be
additional
information
that
we'd
like
to
garden
penis.
My
gut
reaction
is
what
I've
been
doing,
and
with
that
in
mind,
then
there's
always
the
feeling.
Well
do
we
need
to
do
this,
but,
yes,
we
should
go
forever.
We
have
to
provide
the
report
anyway,
and
it
doesn't
hurt
to
provide
a
letter
saying
there
are
other
people
involved
with
this.
G
That
would
like
to
talk
that
you
may
want
to
further
further
information
from
with
that
in
mind,
however,
considering
who
they've
already
spoken
with
and
where
the
allegations
came
from
the
principles,
I,
the
decisions
from
what
money
might
gathering
of
all
of
this,
and
remembering
the
discussions
previously
was
that
the
principles
were
making
these
decisions,
and
perhaps
some
of
the
other
for
want
of
a
better
word
damaged.
One
of
the
school
of
management
of
the
data
within
that
school
I
mean
this
just
with
ESC
it
doesn't.
G
A
A
F
You
do
that
then
you're
gonna
violate
in
Sunshine
Law,
you
you,
you
can't
have
a
letter
that
runs
between
the
five
of
you
trying
to
figure
this
out.
Ask
you
done
sunshine.
Well,
what
I
would
recommend
that
you
do?
Is
you
do
the
motion
that
you
authorize
the
superintendent
as
to
superintend
before
the
results
investigation
and
then
each
member
of
the
board
has
the
ability
to
individual
those?
If
you,
if
you're
going
to
draft
the
letter,
I
think
you're
gonna
have
problems
internally
doing
the
letter
within
violating
sunshine,
and
have
you
guys
communicating
about
this?
A
D
Of
sunshine,
so
did
we
do
that
next
week?
I
mean
it's
obviously
our
you
know
our
meeting
is
next
week.
The
agenda
will
be
finalized
today.
So
could
we
go
ahead
and
add
that
as
an
agenda
item,
you
could
bring
a
draft
to
that
to
that
to
that
board
meeting
you
know
just
like
when
we
had
done
some
policy
review
a
couple
years
ago.
We
had
you
basically
put
it
up
on
the
boarding
and
edited
at
that
time.
If
anybody
knows
how
many
changes
of
11:00.
B
A
B
A
B
A
Have
come
to
the
board
and
it
never
came
to
us
as
a
collective
body.
We
were
not
able
to
do
our.
You
know
our
due
diligence
as
elected
officials.
It
should
have
come
to
us
and
we
should
have
instructed
our
Chairman
draft
a
letter
and
send
it
back.
Yes,
we
will
do
an
internal
investigation
or
no
we're
unable
and
unwilling,
as
it
says,
the
statute,
that's
in
the
statute
and
statute,
supersedes
school
board
policy.
So
that's
why
we're
here
today
and
decide?
Do
we
want
them
to
do
the
additional?
F
F
F
Teacher
I'm
talking
about
the
Union
I'll,
tell
my
anybody.
Has
the
right
under
the
law
to
be
able
to
express
the
freedom
of
speech.
They
have
these
concerns
and
they
say:
here's
a
report.
You
just
received
I,
don't
know
what
it
says,
but
this
is
where
I
think
it's
it's
missing,
but
if
the
report
goes
out,
the
third
parties
outside
in
the
laws
but
later
because
under
chapter
119
them
to
the
best
nation,
is
complete.
It
cannot
be
released
because
Zoe
are.
G
F
D
A
A
I
agree
with
that
and
then,
if
they
find
there's
nothing,
then
we
know
we
have
a
clear
conscience
and
we've
cleared
the
good
name
of
claims,
but
I
think
at
this
point
to
close
the
book
like
this
sputtered
set
and
bury
our
head
in
the
sand.
Well,
they
found
nothing.
There's
nothing
there
when
we're
still
getting
phone
calls
from
people.
We've
got
a
black
mark
on
our
district
I.
D
Think,
in
addition,
this
is
public
and
will
be
viewed.
I
would
encourage
anyone
who
has
information
any
of
our
staff
or
any
parents,
or
anyone
who
has
information
to
go
ahead
and
write
a
letter
directly
to
the
inspector
general's
office
and
and
tell
them
tell
them
in
that
letter
what
they
know,
because
that
would
alleviate
the
intimidation
factor
if
they're
writing
a
separate
letter
that
we
don't
know
anything
about,
because.
B
D
A
F
Doesn't
matter
whether
the
board
authorizes
it
victim
in
law
allows
it?
If
somebody,
if
somebody
makes
the
complaint
the
law,
whistleblower
act
is
not
is
not
given
or
we
thrown
by
for
assets,
not
anything
we
have
to
do.
You
have
no
control.
Are
you
dead?
That's
the
one
whistleblower
act.
If
you
file
a
complaint
under
the
whistleblower
act,
you're
covered
with
Laura
yeah
I've
dealt
with
this
unlit
I've
litigated
quispel.
So.
A
A
I
I
And
I
don't
want
to
do
that
and
and
issues.
It
was
positive
if
we
send
names,
it
looks
like
we're
trying
to
do
things
best
together
at
night.
I,
don't
want
that
job.
You
don't
want
that
job.
We're
just
saying
you
know
just
heard
a
couple
of
different
things:
no
one's
making
sure
that
we're
on
the
right
track
with
the
letter,
so
you
can't
be
too
specific
about
it,
but
just
to
give
them
the
idea
they're
already
one
of
the
probably
some
work
there.
You
know
I.
A
H
H
Out
there
and
from
my
side,
I'm
just
I'm
ready
to
move
forward,
but
also
to
to
better
understand
if
there's
any
process,
either
systems
internally
that
we
need
to
to
identify
in
order
to
change-
and
you
know
the
good
thing
is
this
is
the
first
leg
has
been
complete
and
if
the
second
tier
is
to
come
through,
we
open
to
any
feedback.
We
can
about
this
about
our
organization
about
our
department,
so,
but
you
know,
excited
to
learn
if
there's
something
that
we
do
differently
in
order
to
the
floor.
Thank.
E
E
F
And
that's
that,
if
they,
if
they
have
concerns
I,
would
recommend
they
send
a
letter
saying
I'm,
afraid
they
didn't
get
this
or
that
okay,
but
they
don't,
and
you
don't
give
the
witnesses
the
opportunity
to
change
the
investigation.
They
don't
do
this.
Nobody
does
that
I
mean
I,
don't
know
anybody's
ever
done
that
and
you
know,
I
came
up
about
the
applicability
that
of
the
whistleblower.
F
F
The
chief
inspector
general
for
the
state
of
Florida,
comma
to
the
employee,
doesn't
and
made
the
inspector
under
that
section.
I'm
not
gonna
quote
it
order
the
Florida
Commission
in
relations.
The
revision.
This
section
may
not
be
used
by
a
person.
Why
here
season
care
pesty
control
of
state
vo?
So
you
don't
care
about
that.
But
basically
it's
it's.
F
It's
not
granted
or
withdrawn
by
the
board,
it's
automatic,
very
employed
and
what
happens
in
this
if
an
employee
believes
that
they
are
being
punished
in
violation
of
whistle
boy,
it
authorizes
them
to
seek
remedies
for
the
state.
They
can
file
private
action,
they
can
file
suit
for
damages
or
they
can
get
relief
in
state
government,
but
it
isn't.
J
H
F
The
board
determines
investigation
is
complete.
Then
you
immediately
release
it.
If
the
Board
believes,
there's
more
investigations
could
be
followed
up
in
the
investigation
is
not
complete
in
IG
makes
the
determination
that
further
investigation
is
required.
Yeah
wait,
a
minute
chapter
119,
is
that
while
investigation
is
going
on
Carl
jump
in,
if
you
disagree
with
this,
please
this
SME
chapter
1
anything
wrong.
If
the
investigation
is
still
going
on
going,
it
is
it
is,
it
is
not
sudden
disclosure
until
it's
been
completed,
so
the
Board
says
investigation
is
complete.
F
D
F
Long
as
we're
exactly
in
such
a
fashion
that
the
report
can't
be
used
to
go
back
to
any
particular
person,
in
other
words
you're,
not
just
you,
if
you
say
you
know
you
redact
out
the
name
principal
such-and-such
high
school,
then
you
have
to
do
sufficient,
redact
redacting
of
the
information
that
you
can't
look
at
it
in
any
way,
shape
or
form
go
to
that
person.
So
I
think
if
you
did
that
kind
of
redacted
as
possible.
K
F
See
the
thing
of
it
is
I,
I
do
agree
with
it
and
I
think
that
we
send
it
to
them,
but
I
mean
if
the
board
wants
to
say
as
far
as
we're
concerned,
it's
closed
out.
I,
don't
think
we
have
the
really
the
authority
to
do
that.
I
think
IG
makes.
But
if
the
lord
wants
to
release
it,
we
can
say
it's
done
from
our
perspective.
I,
don't
think
that's
the
right
way
to
do.
It
I
think
the
IG
makes
the
final
determination
whether
inspects
was
completely.
L
We
we
actually
try
to
do
the
whistle
blower
with
the
IG
with
the
Inspector
General
and
we
were
told
we're
not
eligible,
so
we're
told
we're
not
eligible
because
the
school
district
employees
are
not
state
employees
I'm.
Sorry,
the
statute
is
one
one,
two
point:
three
one,
eight
seven
eight
be
grenade
or
ending
in
eight
friend,
be
identifies
a
school
district
as
a
local
government
authority
for
purposes
of
determining
the
remedies
or
violations
to
the
whistle
blowers
act.
L
Ferc
does
not
have
jurisdiction
over
this
matters,
and
it
says
it
has
two
case:
studies,
Leo
versus
Sarasota,
plus
by
Teachers
Association
39,
FPR
64,
and
dire
versus
Hillsboro
Community
College
39,
that's
308,
School
District
employees
are
not
state
employees.
Therefore,
the
provisions
of
section
1
1,
two
point
three:
one:
eight,
nine
five
gram
for
Fred,
a
Florida
Statutes
which
provides
for
Philemon
park
after
resina
Minerva.
So
those
of
a
termination
of
an
investigation
by
the
fire
commissioner
on
Human
Relations,
do
not
apply
to
the
rights
against
a
school
district.
L
If
such
an
authority
does
not
exist,
the
school
district,
employee
making
of
civil
action
in
any
court
of
competent
jurisdiction
and
it
lists
of
two
case
studies-
we
actually
had
the
IG
come
to
us
because
we
were
trying
to
seek
for
our
employees,
whistle
blower
protection
and
we
were
told
we
could
not.
They
do
not
follow
under
the
whistle
result.
L
F
I
F
F
You
want
to
step
up
and
have
a
modification
of
our
policy
to
incorporate
a
whistleblower
provision
in
the
school
board
policy.
You
can
do
that
too,
but
right
now
right
now
it
has
the
stands
right
now
you
don't
have
the
ability
to
go
through
work
as
an
employee
as
a
member
of
the
school
board,
but
you
do
have
the
ability
to
file
civil
action
and
get
attorney
fees
and
cost.
I
I
D
L
And
that
teachers
are
not
apt
to
go
to
court
on
their
own
anyway,
and
nor
would
I
ever
suggest
that
they
do
because
most
of
our
AC
now
so
I
as
a
president
of
a
union
would
never
encourage
them
to
put
themselves
out
there.
Unless
would
because
the
site's
descent
is
interesting
prospect.
Unless
this
Court
does
incorporate
some
policies
to
protect
people
from
coming
over.
So.
H
A
M
Michael
Kerrigan
I'm
an
attorney
in
town.
My
girls
are
any
obviously
for
the
record,
but
I
just
want
to
go
on
record
as
saying
you
guys
are
receiving
basically
awful
legal
counsel
from
your
attorney
there
and
being
steered
in
exactly
the
wrong
direction.
Chapter
119
with
regard
to
confidentiality,
you
guys,
are
simply
a
cog
in
the
wheel
when
it
comes
to
this
investigation.
This
is
being
handled
by
the
OIG
in
Tallahassee.
You
don't
have
the
authority
to
set
the
rules
for
what
you
do
with
this
investigation.
You're.
C
M
Given
the
opportunity
to
respond,
you
have
30
days,
but
you
guys
are
now
almost
120
days
over
that
you
have
the
opportunity
to
draft
a
report,
send
it
back
for
their
review.
They
then
make
the
determination
and
if
you've
done
a
good
job
if
they're
gonna
handle
the
report
they're
going
to
continue,
if
they're
not
going
to
do
that,
this
report
from
the
beginning
was
handled
in
the
wrong
should
not
have
been
anything
handled
by
you
guys
or
by
the
district
and
the
counter.
What
miss
peel
has
a
name
is
content.
Well
said.
M
Your
chairman
previously
has
sent
multiple
letters
to
the
state
and
engaged
in
dialogue
with
the
state,
and
this
board
had
no
knowledge
of
it.
Nor
did
you
vote
on
the
content
of
that
letter.
I
find
it
interesting
that
now
you
guys
go
that
approach
and
discuss
the
letter
in
the
open,
potentially
a
violation
of
sunshine.
With
regard
to
the
whistleblower
protection,
your
HR
department,
I,
think,
is
unaware
the
fact
that
it's
already
in
your
policy,
you
can
pull
up
school
board.
M
Also,
you
already
have
it
in
there
that
the
board
may
authorize
whistle
blower
protection
as
much
by
the
set
over
here.
They
do
not
all
under
the
state
whistleblower
Act,
it's
incumbent
upon
you
as
a
school
board
to
extend
whistleblower
protections
and
the
employee
comes
forward
and
says:
hey
I
have
an
issue:
I
have
a
problem
and
miss
Condon
the
concept
of
putting
the
burden
on
your
employee
to
sue
you
to
come
forward
to
get
an
attorney
in
to
sue.
You
is
simply
unbelievable.
Do
you
have
an
employee
who
wants
to
come
forward?
M
It
could
be
someone
at
any
level
of
administration
or
a
staff
member
you're
talking
about
a
bus
driver
or
janitor
who's,
making
a
minimum
wage,
and
you
want
to
put
the
burden
on
them
to
go
out
and
get
a
turn
and
to
suit
you
to
simply
try
and
get
whistleblower
protection.
The
way
it
should
be
handled
and
the
way
it
is
handled
across
the
state
is
school
boards
have
the
authority
to
say
if
you
come
forward,
you'll
be
given
whistleblower
and
we
will
protect
you.
So
you
can
tell
us
what
you
know.
M
How
is
anybody
supposed
to
ever
feel
comfortable
reporting,
a
boss,
a
supervisor
us
we're
members
Superintendent
if
they
have
that
burden
on
them
and
then
have
to
know
that
man,
if
I,
don't
win
if
I
don't
get
an
attorney?
If
I
don't
get
a
judgment
in
my
favor
now,
I've
just
put
it
out
there
that
my
boss
is
doing
something
wrong
and
forever
will
have
the
target
on
their
back,
because
the
majority
of
your
employees
don't
have
job
security
in
this
county.
Where.
I
F
M
To
be
clear,
you
do
not
have
been
expanded.
Whistleblower
policy
like
perk,
offers
specific
benefits.
It
offers
specific
job
features.
A
pension.
Yours
is
not
acting
wet,
which
is
your
policy
is
awful.
It
has
not
been
reviewed
like
it
should
have
been
over
the
last
20
years.
That
being
said,
the
word
whistleblower
is
in
there
and
said
so.
Board
may
authorize
whistleblower
protection.
Now
you
can
turn
a
blind
eye
and
say:
hey.
You
know
what
employees,
bus
driver,
janitor
teacher,
go
out
and
get
an
attorney
and
sue
us.
M
I
N
M
D
Comments
were
misconstrued,
I,
don't
think
at
all
that
our
employees
should
have
to
bear
any
burden
on
themselves.
I
was
merely
trying
to
clarify
between
you,
miss
IVA
and
mr.
Sikes
to
comment
further
beyond
that.
I
I,
I
didn't
I,
never
said
publicly.
That
I
agree
with
the
choice
that
mrs.
McKinnon
made
about
drafting
that
letter
and
I
I.
In
fact,
I
spoke
from
my
comments
as
a
board
member
that
I
wanted
us
to
make
sure
that
we
were
doing
things
correctly
going
forward.
I
agreed
with
you
and
mrs.
Harris
on
that.
D
We
that
she
did
not
act
on
our
behalf
and
and
that,
as
the
state
statutes
clearly
identified
with
school
boards,
that
we
act
as
one
board
and
so
I
would
only
I
do
believe.
We
need
to
do
the
right
thing
going
forward
and
what
has
happened
in
the
past?
We
can't
go
back
to
change,
but
we
can
go
forward.
A
K
A
And
I
don't
feel
that
way
at
all
and
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
because
this
was
when
we've
discussed
it.
We
suspected
cordially
and
respectfully,
and
we
good
things
in
our
future.
Is
there
any
school
board
requests
anybody
have
anything
they
want
to
say
before
we
adjourn
this
meeting
and
move
into
our
workshop
with
that.
Mr.
Henderson.
C
C
We
have
that
responsibility
not
to
release
that
information.
If
we
become
aware
of
an
investigation,
for
example,
with
law
enforcement,
even
though
we
may
feel
comfortable
release
that
information,
it's
always
our
practice
to
contact
the
investigating
agency
to
ask
permission
before
we
release
any
confidential
data.
That's
what
I
would
recommend.
We.