School Board discusses changes to public input at board meetings, reluctantly approves contracts for administrators

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – At the June 3 School Board of Alachua County meeting, the board voted against starting a Superintendent search, discussed changes to their policies for public participation at board meetings, talked about the future of the dual-language immersion program at Terwilliger, and reluctantly approved contracts for administrators.

Vu’s request to start the Superintendent search

During the adoption of the agenda, Member Thomas Vu asked to add a discussion item “on the Superintendent search” to the agenda because “if this body decides to do that, we need to start sooner rather than later. Otherwise, we’ll find ourselves in the same position we were in earlier in this fiscal year, to where it was too late to start.” Superintendent Kamela Patton’s contract expires on June 30, 2026. The vote failed 2-3, with only Vu and Member Leanetta McNealy in favor of adding the discussion item to the agenda. 

Public Participation at Board Meetings

The board held a public hearing on amendments to the district’s policy on Public Participation at Board Meetings, including limiting public input to two periods in each board meeting. The first public input period, at the beginning of the meeting, will give each speaker a total of two minutes to address all agenda items; that period is limited to 45 minutes. A second public input period at the end of the meeting will give each speaker two minutes to “address educationally related non-Board action topics”; that period does not have a time limit. Public comment will no longer be taken on action items during the meeting.

Vu: “Reducing public comment to two minutes total for all action items, especially when agendas are slammed full of them, doesn’t allow for meaningful conversation.”

Vu said, “While I understand the desire for efficiency, limiting community input does not make governance stronger. It make it less accessible, less transparent, and less representative… Reducing public comment to two minutes total for all action items, especially when agendas are slammed full of them, doesn’t allow for meaningful conversation. Moving general comment to the very end, which often stretches past bedtimes, forces educators and parents into an impossible choice between speaking up and advocating or fulfilling their personal responsibilities in the home. It’s not fair, it’s not equitable, and it’s not what public education stands for.” He said he would prefer keeping public input the way it is now.

Chair Sarah Rockwell said she was open to giving the public three minutes, but she was concerned about how long meetings are taking. She pointed out that they were already an hour into the meeting and hadn’t started any action items; she added that under the amended policy, people who wanted to speak on agenda items would be able to speak earlier in the meeting and go home instead of waiting for each agenda item. She also said topics that are not on the agenda are “not time-sensitive,” and those people can contact the board by email or phone. 

Rockwell and Member Tina Certain were willing to allow three minutes instead of two, and Certain also suggested moving board member comments to the end of the meeting; Member Janine Plavac also supported that.

Dual-language immersion program at Terwilliger

During Board Member Announcements, Plavac said she supported continuing the dual-language immersion program at Terwilliger Elementary School: “Whatever we need to do, we’re going to do, to make it right for you.”

During Superintendent Announcements, Patton said the announcement about the end of the dual-language immersion program “could have done a better job with execution from the school and district level.” She said the teachers will be staying in their positions, and third grade will be added next year, with fourth and fifth grades in the following years, but “for right now, we’re pausing the program.” She said the students will stay in their cohorts, and the school and district will work on “looking at how to just enhance the program further.” She said the parents will have a district liaison. She concluded, “It’s a great program; it’s going to be even greater of a program… We will be a better district because of this whole incident and setting programs up for the future.”

Reductions in school and non-school positions

After general public comment, Rockwell asked Patton about her plan to cut positions at the district level. Patton said the cuts to school positions will save about $8.5 million, and the cuts to non-school positions will save another $6 million. She said, “The bulk of all of our staff are in the school, so way disproportionately, these cuts are coming from non-school-site positions.”

Vu said he didn’t like the reductions in hours for some school employees because “a 236-day employee does not really do less work” than a 252-day employee; “we’ve just cut their pay and benefits… I do not like the way we have created essentially a sub-class of year-round employee… We’re creating a lot of tensions… We are creating resentment.” He asked the other board members to “please go and talk to these folks and understand the human cost. I’m not saying this has to change your vote, but what I am saying is, you have to understand it.”

McNealy said she was also unhappy with the changes and had spoken to the Superintendent about it. She said, “I’ve heard the employees, and that’s what hurts me,” and she said she would not be voting for some of the administrative appointments. She added that the district is “going to have to find ways to hold on to the people that have given so much.”

Plavac said she was “extremely disturbed by the [Dual Language Immersion] principal’s email because I’m a professional person, and I could not believe that principal sent you out that email.” She said Patton didn’t know about the email at the time. She also said she hoped the board could influence Patton to change some of her decisions about personnel assignments, although the board does not have authority over that.

Appointments for administrators

The board next took up lists of appointments for school-based and district-level administrators. Board Attorney David Delaney told the board that “there are only very limited circumstances where the board has the authority to override those judgment calls by the Superintendent… It has to be very substantial things, like violations of law.”

Click here for the full list of appointments and contract extensions.

Plavac asked whether board members are allowed to ask the Superintendent, at her discretion, to make changes before the list is voted on, and Delaney said the Superintendent could alter the list up to the time of the vote. 

Plavac said she didn’t support the continued assignment of the Terwilliger principal because of the way she handled notifying the parents about ending the dual-language immersion program and the subsequent parent meeting. She concluded, “It seems to me, with all the changes that we’re doing, that maybe this person needs to be evaluated and not be in this position.”

The motion by Vu to approve the annual contracts for school-based administrative appointments passed 4-1, with Plavac in dissent. 

One-year contract extensions for district-level administrators

Patton recommended approving one-year extensions of contracts for a list of district-level administrators. Certain made a motion to approve the list of one-year extensions, but Vu tried to amend the motion to change it to a one-month extension, saying the list “is very top-heavy, still, to me.” Delaney said all the positions had been approved by the board in the past and were in the budget, so the Superintendent has the authority to assign the people she wants in those roles. Delaney said the board could cut positions, but that would be a different conversation. Vu pointed out that they haven’t passed the FY26 budget yet.

McNealy said she disagreed with some of the assignments on the one-year extension list, and “I’m still holding for those individuals, and so I would not feel comfortable in voting for the extension of contracts.”

Patton said she had “already eliminated quite a few administrators with the budget cuts.”

Since there still hadn’t been a second to Certain’s motion to approve the list, Rockwell passed the gavel to Certain so she could second the motion. Delaney said his advice to the board was, “Unless the board has good cause, as defined by the statute,… then the board is obligated, under Florida law, to approve the Superintendent’s recommendation.”

McNealy said she was “not pleased with the list, so statutorily, I will not be voting for what you just stated.”

Delaney responded, “It’s my duty to tell you that Florida law does not permit that position to be taken.”

McNealy said, “Okay, very well, then, I can dissent. The Florida law won’t stop me from that.”

Patton said the board could pass the list, and then she could bring back some changes at their July meeting: “I would not want the board to break what I know is Florida Statute.” 

McNealy said that based on that, she could vote for the list. The vote to approve the list was unanimous, and Certain passed the gavel back to Rockwell.

Two-year contract extensions for the Deputy Superintendent and Chief Financial Officer 

Next on the list was the approval of two-year contract extensions for Deputy Superintendent Cathy Atria and Chief Financial Officer Gabrielle Jaremczuk, and Certain made a motion to approve the extensions but said she was uncomfortable because she had learned that several employees were given extensions “prior to November” (under the previous Superintendent) without the board’s knowledge. She added, “I think the spirit in which it was done was to usurp our authority, as well as to hamstring the board. And so I can’t support that… I don’t want to be party to legitimizing something that was done improperly.”

Vu asked if they could split the motion and change the Deputy Superintendent’s position to a one-year contract; Delaney said a contract is a two-way agreement, so he recommended asking the Superintendent to find out whether the employee would accept a one-year contract before voting on it.

Vu offered a “friendly amendment” to vote on the two positions separately, and Certain agreed. 

Patton said she had worked with the attorney to clean up the contracts and prevent the situation Certain was concerned about (extending contracts without the approval of the board). She also said the attorney’s interpretation is that the contracts guarantee the employees a position in the district but not necessarily the same job title or pay. 

A two-year contract for CFO Gabrielle Jaremczuk was approved unanimously.

Regarding a two-year contract for the Deputy Superintendent, Patton said that position is a “right hand to the superintendent – while I’m doing 5,000 other things, they’re doing a million things to move this district.” She asked why board members were concerned about a contract that would demonstrate to an applicant “that there’s some kind of continuity and would not change coming here, moving a family for one year.”

Certain said her objection was because “a previous person” had extended the contract without board approval and that although she voted for a two-year contract for the CFO, “I really didn’t want that one, either.”

Patton reminded the board that they wouldn’t have known about the extended contracts if she hadn’t told them: “I could have kept my mouth shut and just moved things on; it’s not who I am. When I find out something, I let you know, because we collectively need to clean things up.”

The vote to approve the two-year contract extension for the Deputy Superintendent failed, 0-5. 

Certain made a motion to approve a one-year contract extension for the Deputy Superintendent, and Vu seconded the motion. That motion passed, 5-0. 

Three-year contract for the General Counsel

The next item was a three-year contract for General Counsel Will Spillias, which started on July 1, 2024, and will end on June 30, 2027. Certain made a motion to approve the contract, and Plavac seconded the motion. 

Certain said she disagreed with portions of the contract that extended dependent care benefits and insurance benefits because “the board was not made aware of that, and the district already provides free health insurance for the employee.” She said she was aware that Patton had had experience with those benefits in other counties, “but here, that precedent has not been set.” Patton said the insurance will only be needed “for three more months.”

Rockwell said the contract was “extended and added to without board approval under previous leadership, so that was not something Dr. Patton did.”

The contract for the General Counsel was approved unanimously. 

Backup documents for the consent agenda

During approval of the consent agenda, Vu asked that backup documentation be posted in future agendas, for the benefit of the public. Patton said she had been talking about this with staff for two months, but “I can only tackle as many things as I can humanly tackle.”

Charter school contracts

After approving a 10-year contract extension for the Micanopy Area Cooperative Charter School and postponing a discussion on a contract for the Newberry charter school to a special meeting on June 9, the meeting was adjourned.