Part II: What Just Happened?
During the public comments segment at the November 19 Sarasota School Board Meeting, public school advocate Richard Stammer’s words were predictive of what was still yet to come. “Nobody is going to bring me down,” he began. “I’m a happy guy. Happiest to see Liz join the school board. She is an incredibly welcomed member.”
Before the 5:45pm meeting start time, newly elected Liz Barker and second term board member Tom Edwards were sworn in to serve during an installation ceremony. Not only was board member Bridget Ziegler absent from the proceedings, but over 50 citizens were left standing outside while it was happening. Superintendent Terry Connor apologized for the misunderstanding.
All of the public comments embodied a hopeful optimistic tone, with the exception of speakers Lt. Col. Duff Smiley and Michelle Pozzi. Both went on the attack against Edwards with an outdated, ignorant and farcical agenda. Smiley claims at the meetings that he had headed up a diversity team at GM. However, he used the word ‘indoctrination’ three times within his three-minute time allotment. Makes one wonder if he was forced to head up a diversity team and what he possibly could have learned.
Pozzi attempted to school Enos on her first amendment rights as she went on a rampage against Edwards about students having to wear masks during the Covid epidemic. “I’m coming to every meeting,” she lashed out. With all the problems that are facing public schools across the country, how does going back serve the best interest of the students heading into 2025?
The two topics intertwining among all the speakers were:
The recommendations of Enos and Edwards to be chosen as Chair and co-chair of the board (and);
Agenda Item 6, which cuts back the district’s two monthly school board meetings to one.
Connor made a point to inform the public that this was his brainchild with the unsubstantiated reasoning that this was about “efficiency”. However, because there had been no workshop previous to the board having to vote on the agenda item, no one knew how this was structured to be “more efficient”.
As he explained his cause, it appeared evident that along with Ziegler and ousted board member Karen Rose, Connor had been playing the ‘long game’ to make this cut happen.
Always affable, transparent and thorough, Connor has consistently displayed an ethical manner in serving his constitutional duty. Not having a discussion at a workshop previous to a vote of this importance was wholly out of character. There was an obvious change in his demeanor at this meeting, but it was chalked it up to his added role in the reorganization of the board and special hearing.
Before a vote was taken, public school advocates lined up to speak out against it.
Citing the recent county-wide vote for school board elections to remain non-partisan, Leila Newcomb told the board: “Let’s prove that we mean that.” Newcomb hoped to see Edwards, a Democrat and Enos, a Republican serve as chair and co-chair.
Newcomb moved on to Agenda 6, reasoning that because the agenda hadn’t been workshopped in advance of a vote, this “sets a dangerous precedence. I would suggest tabling it for further discussion.
”
Support Our School’s Lisa Schurr called it as she saw it. Not holding back, she asked who was responsible for the doors being shut during the swearing-in ceremony, speaking on behalf of those left outside in a line. “We were not happy,” she said.
Congratulating Edwards and Barker, Schurr broke into a smile and noted: “We truly believe that you reflect the values of this community.” Moving on to the selection of the new chair and co-chair, Schurr put in her support for the “two T.E’s - Tom Edwards and Tim Enos. This would signal to the public that you’re all about transparency and accountability.”
In her remaining three minutes, Schurr questioned Agenda 6. “It a deja vu feeling and hopefully you will explain to us what’s behind this idea of cutting our time by only having one board meeting…”
Public School advocate, Elizabeth Bornstein, speaking several times before the board described the cutting back to one meeting as “bizarre”. Firmly stating her position, the parent of a public school student believes the agenda “undermines respect and is unconscionable”. Two meetings a month insured a “successful, community-based year.” She asked the board members to “restore our trust”.
She also saw the team of Enos and Edwards as the way to “bridge the gap. Bridge the divide. This is a new day to celebrate. The voters have spoken.”
Traci Lipton was outspoken in her belief that the board’s agenda 6 item was to silence the public. “If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck. . .”. She then implored the board to vote for Edwards as chair.
Frequent board meeting attendee Rhana Bazzini also questioned the speed of the vote taking place. “It didn’t follow rules and regulations,” she said, with calm in her voice. “It’s curious to me. I would like to see it workshopped.”
She believed the board was attempting to set a precedence, by getting the controversial measure in during installation of the newly elected board members. She and others reminded the board that this same type of blindsiding measure took place during an installation of new board members two years ago in a motion to remove then superintendent Brennan Asplen from his position.
On a lighter note, Bazzini said with a twinkle in her eye,” The last few boards have had women as chairs and co-chairs. This old woman likes gentlemen.” She endorsed the team of Tim Enos and Tom Edwards in either the chair or vice-chair position.
Pastor J.T. Pryor congratulated Edwards and Barker, and hoped for a “wonderful spirit of collaboration. We can make this a better world for our students,” he said. “We don’t want to be angry, but have a productive dialogue,” He was against reducing meetings to once a month.
Mary Holmes, a 38-year veteran ESE teacher scolded the superintendent and board for considering the cutback. Pointing to a full audience, she said passionately, “You should be celebrating that there are this many people in the room! There should be more meetings, not less!”
Changing the topic, but not her tone, Holmes spoke on board member Robyn Marinelli’s attempts to cut off public speakers’ comments. Holmes noted that there was an ACLU attorney in the boardroom. “Save your drama for your Mama,” the educator told Marinelli, describing her actions as a “complete affront”.
She hoped to see Edwards as chair and Enos as co-chair.
On Amendment 6, twenty-year-old Sebastian Martinez spoke respectfully to the board, with the message of “optimism, hope and opportunity through constructive dialogue. Voting for this amendment is counter-intuitive and contradictory,” he said.
In an extremely disjointed meeting, a recess was called on the public speaking comments and turned to the special hearing of the new Skye Ranch Elementary School boundaries. Before the interested parties spoke, the North Port High School Orchestra performed a piece.
Due to the length and rushed feel of the meeting, they couldn’t tune their instruments properly.
Connor emphasized this was a time for the public to speak, but the board members would not be interacting, only listening. On November 22, the board would convene in a workshop at 11:00am and take formal action in a vote.
Judging from the displeasure from those that spoke, it appears that the public was left in the dark on changes that would affect the neighboring school Ashton Elementary. Bornstein also spoke on this topic as she lives in the district. “I am aware and found it difficult to find information. There were no attachments. I had to Google. . .”
There was only one parent speaking in favor of the boundary plans, and it was noted that Ziegler smiled and nodded in approval. Another speaker said that it almost seemed like it was already a done deal.
Bornstein insisted that more transparency was needed. “This is not acceptable. I am not for decimating Ashton to make Skye Ranch the creme de la creme. Teachers will lose their jobs. I’m a taxpayer. We need to show respect to a stellar school. Shame on you.”
Regarding the Skye Ranch redistricting of school boundaries, SEE Alliance Founder Zander Moricz asked of the board: “Listen to the families of Ashley Elementary. Gutting one school makes no sense.
“Your only role is to serve the people who came to you and asked you to do something. Please do that.”
Following the special hearing, a student was presented by the Superintendent to speak of his accomplishments. Connor apologized that he was kept so long. “Feel free to leave any time so you can get to your banquet,” he stated kindly and with consideration.
He also apologized to the SCS Recognition winners and thanked them for their patience in staying late to be honored.
In yet another segment of the meeting, Martinez did hold Connor to account pointing out his care for people having to stay late, but questioning his agenda for one meeting a month, which would result in meetings lasting late in the night. “What about those students who come to the meetings and have to go to class the next day?”
Julie Forestier was the next to speak after the hearing and brought everyone back down to earth by stating: “This is an exciting night.” She hoped to see the team of Enos and Edwards as “it blends the balance”.
On cutting monthly meetings to half, Forestier stated: “While efficiency may seem appealing on the surface, this move threatens the very foundation of our participatory Democracy. This disproportionally affects working families like mine and undermines Sarasota’s legacy of excellence.”
India Miller was up to the dais next and expressed her desire to have Edwards chair the meetings, with Barker as the co-chair. Acknowledging that this scenario probably wouldn’t happen, she endorsed Enos, because he apologized personally to her for online bullying and abuse that were directed at her from Rose
Studying Political Science at New College and a graduate of Pine View School in 2019, Darien Nigro spoke eloquently against Agenda 6. He expressed surprise as he asked the questions: “Why would the people be told that you want to distance yourself from them? Why wouldn’t you want to maintain the support that got you here? How can that be possible meeting only once per month?” He last attended a board meeting four years ago. He stated that he could do political science anywhere, but grew up in Sarasota. “I choose to be here. I choose civic engagement here.”
Along with other speakers, Alan Romero reminded the board that the district’s A rating “doesn’t happen by accident. Going to one meeting would lose the momentum,” he advised. “Stay as connected as possible and focus on building the future.”
The tag team of Casanova and Alyx Dougherty brought receipts to the dais. Casanova started his three-minute allotment by expressing that he was “ecstatic” over the board’s addition of Barker and the re-election of Edwards. The former Booker student believed that the agenda on everyone’s mind needed to be postponed until after it was workshopped.
He and Alyx agreed that the possibility of one meeting a month could work if the board instead held frequent forums or town halls, like other districts do. “We have to keep up this energy of cooperation,” they said. “Peers are really busy. Let’s enhance this, not harm it.” They recommended to “table it” until everything is properly discussed.
SOS’ Carol Lerner ventured on the topic of the serious times ahead, as did Schurr who earlier said: “We are going to see immense challenges in the coming year.”
Explaining what it means if the U.S. Department of Education is dismantled, Schurr informed the room that the “DOE enforces civil rights. Provides ESE safety measures.” She does not want to see Sarasota move backward.
Lerner added that community input is important and other districts “are jealous of what we have here. We need to preserve this.” She suggested separate meetings and separate models, but to do it with more input. “Let’s not rush into this,” she advised.
On a different note, she also liked the team of Edwards and Enos, to display to the voters that they were heard. Her twist was a wish for rotation - so one serves as chair for one meeting and the other serves at the next.
Throughout the night, it was the wish of the public that the board members show good faith in working cooperatively, across the aisle. Kristy Karwatt said that the team of Enos and Edwards reflects the will of the people. “It’s time to move away from partisanship.”
It was only Smiley who suggested Marinelli as co-chair.
With the glowing endorsements Enos received all night long, he was the only nominee for Chair of the board, making him the new leader. It was a nail-biter when two names were nominated for vice-chair - that of Edwards and Marinelli. Would the will of the voters be heard? With a three-two vote, Marinelli was named the co-chair, with Enos voting for Marinelli.
The advocates’ vocalized and profuse faith in the new chair dissipated as quickly as a balloon popping.
The next big vote came on Agenda 6. Connor was ready when Barker asked if the vote had to happen that evening. He had the statute right in front of him, informing her that a vote had to take place.
One only needs to look as far back as a couple of months ago, when public speaker Avery Cole asked the board to move the alternate board meetings to 6pm from 3pm. He cited every reason why this time was not plausible for working parents, the teachers and students who are barely out of class at the start time. He mentioned that his brother wanted to attend the 3:00 meeting, but like so many others, he had extra-curricular, after-school activities.
It should come as no surprise that it was Ziegler who firmly stated that the meeting time would not change due to the excuse of “service people” who aren’t able to attend at 6pm. With the public’s own eyes, it was evident that the crowded evening meetings and the lack of people attending the afternoon meetings disputed her spin.
Connor stated the lack of attendance at the 3:00 meetings as his explanation for the board simply not needing to hold two meetings. Marinelli said that she got e-mails from people stating they were unable to attend the 6:00 meetings. (Then why weren’t they at the 3:00 pm meetings?)
Their words took on the appearance of undermining the public’s intelligence.
The vote was 3 - 2 to cut back to one meeting per month. Barker and Edwards were the only two to hear out their constituents. There was not one person in the audience who supported this.
Marinelli’s response was ironic: “I listen to you. I have three pages of notes.”
Enos said he understands the public’s concern, as he voted for the measure. Along with Connor, he brought up that public speakers were recently given an extra two minutes at the end of the meetings. Connor and Enos described that as a compromise. The public never saw it that way, nor was the additional time ever presented as a ‘compromise’ for cutting back on an entire meeting.
The board explained to the public that the additional time was to discuss opportunities or problems that didn’t revolve around agenda items.
Wendy Rosen described her feelings this way:
“I’m not sure, but I believe I saw the goodwill that Tim Enos established over the past several months vanish. I want a board focused on community engagement, not political polarization. We all need to understand that trust is a fragile thing built on more engagement, not less. It appears that both Liz and Tom were blindsided. From what I could see… they were both excluded from the backroom conversations prior to the meeting.”
In a tik-tok video, India Miller expressed her disappointment but believes if her voice won’t be heard at a second meeting, that won’t silence her. Her voice will just be louder
Before a vote even took place, public speaker Zander Moricz summed up where the public school advocates stood: “Now today the work begins.”
Dear Bubbie thoughts: Was this disconcerting agenda and vote supposed to serve as a distraction? What was to be a night of celebration and collaboration was stolen by board members, and even possibly the superintendent. Was this an attempt to break up momentum and a growing interest from citizens in Sarasota’s public schools that don’t align with Ziegler’s motivations? If the answer is yes, then advocates like: Schurr; Miller; Moricz; Martinez; Rosen; Karwatt; Stammer (and); many, many more will tell these board member - it didn’t work.
In the next Dear Bubbie: We examine the machinations that controlled the votes of Tim Enos. We’ll include Edwards’ response verbatim from the meeting and a few words from Liz Barker. One constituent described Enos’ vote as a “shiv in the back”. Your voice matters. Send your thoughts to: jslferguson@gmail.com