With No Workshop, the Sarasota School Board Wants to Make a Big Change

Setting a precedent for no warning and therefore, less battle.

Someone change my mind. . . please.

I’m as flexible as a willow tree blowing in the New England gusty wind, but I need a burgeoning light breeze in advance to adjust. In public, I respond, not react. With family and friends, if I hear something that sounds illogical, I instantly become Jake Paul and the words / reasoning / argument is Mike Tyson’s face.

Nothing has me as stirred up since the November 5 elections than a vote that is going to be taking place at the Sarasota School Board Meeting tomorrow, November 19. Perhaps if Agenda Item Number 6 Approval of Regular School Board Meeting Dates had been workshopped in advance, like almost every other agenda item, I’d have the necessary time to unpeel the onion. Instead, I presently see this plan of cutting back from two meetings a month to one as a real failure and setback for the community and Sarasota’s public schools.

Thus, I’m pulling out my boxing gloves, which is probably the opposite effect the board wanted the public to have as it appears they attempted a sucker-punch.

The meetings will take place at 6:00pm to accommodate those that were never able to make the 3:00 meetings (except in June and July). This is the 2025 schedule that is recommended to pass:

• January 14

• February 18

• March 11

• April 15

• May 20

• June 10

• July 22

• August 19

• September 16

• October 21

• November 18

• December 16

One of the reasons that it is recommended to pass is for “efficiency”. From what I’ve heard, this is a plan prepared by Superintendent Terry Connor.

I don’t believe this for a second.

Not from the administrator who wants to hold ‘Coffee with Connor’ events so he’s more in touch and transparent with the public. A more plausible narrative is that a bug was planted in his ear by a school board member(s), who simply doesn’t want to hear from the public to the degree that it presently does.

That certainly adds up. The meetings have always had twenty or more in attendance. The school’s YouTube tapings of the meetings hit more than 100 viewers. The Dear Bubbie blogs on the public schools have created such a stir (not only in Sarasota), that I can no longer write about my beloved pets or topics of my choosing.

Recently, there was a call to cut back on the speaking time of the public. School board member Robyn Marinelli wanted one minute, but the board attorney pointed out that this would clearly not be enough time.

Ironically, when Marinelli speaks at the end of the meetings or at workshops, her observations are painfully long. Her words almost always contain chastising the public speakers for what she is guilty of so often herself. Unlike the onions, I am not going to mince words here.

Frankly, I would rather get along. I get as much enjoyment out of disputing authority as I do cutting actual onions. However, I’m pretty furious that cutting back on meetings is even attempted to be justifiable. I feel like the public is being gaslighted by the pro reasons, when the end result is clear.

One pro argument is that more people will attend if there’s only one meeting a month. Let’s see, how does that work? For example, perhaps a parent is unable to attend a September 16 meeting. Instead of them waiting two weeks to address a concern (as it plays out now), the new amendment means they will have to wait thirty days.

Does the board hope that with time, distractions will occur and the matter will never be brought up again - like the extra .75 cents students are now paying for school lunches?

In a month’s time, there will now be double the agenda items, but still the same amount of public speaking time per meeting. How is that logical, fair or helpful?

It usually takes three minutes (the allotted time for public speakers) to discuss the one concerning agenda item. We’ve heard that buzzer go off, because the speakers aren’t through with their discourse. We’ve seen the public race through their speeches, so it’s almost not decipherable, in order to make their point.

Is this what the pros mean by efficiency? Speakers will now get 1.5 minutes to discuss one item, if there’s two they want to reflect on?

Another pro argument is that a new meeting can always be convened if the topic is sensitive or requires more time. With a Bridget Ziegler on board, does the public really believe this will happen? It absolutely will not.

The change of meetings will take place in 2025 - right when the nominated Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy vow to dismantle the United States Department of Education.

How coincidental that the word ‘efficiency’ is also thrown around now locally. Ziegler, again? Obviously, this is not the time to cut back on the voices of public education advocates.

Let’s remind the board that in Sarasota County, the millage referendum passed by a whopping 84%. These advocates, many who attend the two meetings a month, used their social media influence and voices to encourage this vote. I never saw Ziegler encourage the passing of these all-important tax dollars, but then again, she has me blocked on ‘X’.

In a way, I feel the public was used. Now that they got the job done, the board members on the dais are going to cut back on seeing and hearing them, due to efficiency and the bogus point that more people will attend. I believe two Taylor Swift concerts will produce twice as many people, not less.

Even if it’s the same faces, it certainly is not the same issues. The speakers are impeccable with their research and fresh perspective on topics that matter. Their voices are intelligent and important. They should be respected, not diminished.

Just like the board created a new precedence by partnering up with controversial Christian nationalist Liberty University recently, this also feels like there is way more to this agenda item than passes muster. Who wouldn’t feel this way, when there was absolutely no advance warning?

There would be few voices dispelling this terrible idea tomorrow, because they didn’t know about it. Was that the game plan? Were they hoping that more attention would be focused on who the next new School Board chair and vice chair will be? It’s easy to roll over this agenda item, but it was the first thing that caught my eye.

“Let’s try it out. There’s nothing to lose,” one advocate told me. Please. There is no going back, if it’s voted to happen in the first place.

At this dire time, the public’s support and voices are needed now more than ever before. Fewer meetings means less time for the speakers and a decrease in attendance (not more). I stand firm on that. The public is staying tirelessly on task and not making excuses for not attending. There’s not even a martyr flow to this. The people are there, because they know they are making a difference and demanding accountability and transparency.

The board’s salary has always included two meetings a month. This added padding helps the district maintain their ‘A’ rating. The public, teachers and board put in the work. Many districts only hold one meeting a month. Good for them, but better for Sarasota as we raise the curve of public interest in our conversation, newspapers and social media.

The public gets paid nothing to attend. I hope the board doesn’t choose this recommendation for Agenda 6, because it would signal that they don’t give the public the respect they deserve. It would appear to me that they would rather shop, stay home or help the kids with their homework.

If the public is willing to roll up its sleeves on behalf of students, teachers and staff twice a month (even though they have things they’d rather do), the paid board should be able to continue what has been a very successful two-way street.

Can anyone change my mind? Please? I’m listening.

---

The School Board meeting meets at 5:00pm tomorrow (Tuesday, Nov. 19) at the Administrative Complex located at 1980 Landings Blvd. to swear in new board Member Liz Barker as well as returning board member Tom Edwards. A new chair and vice-chair will be voted on.

---