I do not understand how stifling the voice of the community can in anyway be beneficial to our students. The fact that this even is an agenda item is deeply concerning.

At a time when enrollment is at an all‑time low and families have more educational choices than ever, it is deeply concerning that the School Board is once again attempting to limit public participation at Board meetings.

Parents, caregivers, and community members are the taxpayers who fund this district. We deserve, not as a courtesy, but as a right to choose to speak openly about the decisions that affect our children.

It is especially ironic that Board Members continue to express confusion about how to improve customer service and rebuild trust with families. They want to look to other districts for answers, yet overlook the most direct and meaningful solution: listen to the people you serve. Families have been clear about what they want, transparent decision‑making and genuine opportunities for public input in their child’s education.
Advisory groups and the public alike must not be limited to speak at these meetings. Restricting voices will only widen the gap between the district and the community it is supposed to represent.

I urge you to vote NO on Policy 0169.1 and reject any proposal that erodes community engagement. Public input is essential to transparency, accountability, and restoring trust in our school system.

The fact that the board is considering making these changes and the attorney is saying it benefits all of us only confirms the concerns the community has about the Boards decision making. Limiting public input doesn’t serve the community. Many families don’t have the means to attend meetings and workshops due to other obligations. Often times one persons voice is the voice of many. It seems like the district isn’t interested in hearing from the community and making policies that best serve our students and schools. This is another reason parents are fed up with the district. Please stop trying to silence the people you serve. Teacher, parents, advocates, and of course our students. They are the ones who will once again be affected by the limitations this policy change creates.

Please vote no on Policy 0169.1. Given the limited availability of many folks, reducing the time alloted to the community for public comment seems counterintuitive. Many folks coming in to speak represent large groups of people who cannot come in on their own- their communities, different school populations, PTAs representing families, Advisories. To limit the time weakens the voices of all of those people that you have been elected to serve.

Please vote No on Policy 0169.1 and protect the public's role in the decision-making process. Strong community involvement is essential for transparency, accountability, and maintaining public confidence in our school system and Board.

I respectfully oppose Policy No. 0169 because I believe it limits transparency, public engagement, and meaningful community participation in decisions that directly affect our students and schools.

In regard to Item J of the proposed revisions to Policy 1020, I strongly oppose limiting public comment time and restricting members of the public to only one allotted opportunity to speak across multiple agenda items.

Limiting the voices of the very people who choose to send their children to public schools is a disservice to the community and sends a clear message that stakeholder input is not truly valued. Policies like this will only further encourage families to seek educational opportunities outside of the public school system.

Taking away opportunities for parents, guardians, students, teachers, staff, and community members to share their perspectives and provide feedback creates a system that prioritizes district-level administration over the needs of those directly impacted by board decisions. Running a district without meaningful public input is a surefire way to lose sight of what is happening in classrooms every day.

Time and again, information presented to School Board members by the district has proven to be incomplete or lacking critical context. Without input from those directly affected by proposed policies, the district risks continuing to make decisions that fail to support students, teachers, and the overall classroom experience.

Each school year, Broward County Public Schools sends surveys and communications emphasizing the importance of community engagement and stakeholder feedback. Limiting speaker time for individuals who take the time and effort to attend School Board meetings stands in direct contradiction to those stated values. If BCPS truly values communication and collaboration with its community, it should protect and expand opportunities for public comment, not restrict them.

Limiting the speaking time and the point in the meeting where public comment is taking is akin to silencing the public’s voice. Public speakers should be taken when the issue is up for discussion, not when it is most convenient for the Chair. By having public comment only at the start of the meeting you are negating the comments, especially for topics that don’t hit the agenda until 4 or 5 in the afternoon. Discussion should be closest to the time at which a topic is going to be discussed. Also not allowing the public to provide comments on motions also defeats and limits the public’s voice. You are a board of 9, elected by the public. Listen to the public.

Good evening, Chair and Members of the Board.

I'm writing today regarding Item J of the proposed revisions to Policy 1020, specifically the language affecting where and when public comment on agenda items is permitted.

What I'm deeply concerned about is how these revisions collapse the public's meaningful speaking opportunities. Under current practice, the public has four separate three-minute slots available across various points in a meeting—before items, during deliberation, at critical moments. The proposed changes effectively compress that to a single three-minute period at the very beginning of the meeting, before any discussion, before you've even heard staff presentations, before the issues are even on the floor.

This is a dramatic reduction in the public's capacity to actually be heard. If I speak at 9:00 a.m. on an item that won't be discussed until 4:00 p.m., my comment is divorced from the actual deliberation, stripped of context, and frankly forgotten by the time you vote. Cutting public comment windows to a single three-minute slot at the start of an eight-hour meeting day doesn't expand access—it eliminates it.

I urge the Board to reconsider any provision that further compresses or front-loads public input rather than preserving meaningful opportunities to be heard close in time to when an item is actually deliberated and voted upon.

I also want to stress the importance of Advisory Committees as a vital communication channel between this Board and the families and communities it serves. These committees translate lived, ground-level experience into actionable recommendations for this District. Any policy change that limits, dilutes, or makes more difficult the ability of Advisory Groups to be heard — whether through shortened report times, narrowed scope, or procedural hurdles — would debilitate the very community input mechanism this District relies on to identify problems and improve our schools.

I ask the Board to preserve, not narrow, the public's ability to be heard meaningfully, and to protect Advisory Committees as a core feedback structure rather than treating them as expendable.

Thank you.

Ana Corujo

As a parent of a child with disabilities, public comment has been one of the only ways to bring attention to serious concerns affecting students and families. Restricting public input reduces transparency, weakens accountability, and silences the voices of those most impacted by School Board decisions.

The Board serves the public. Families deserve meaningful opportunities to be heard throughout meetings, not just a few minutes at the beginning before agenda items are discussed.

A strong public school system depends on community engagement, not less of it.

As a parent who has spent countless hours advocating within BCPS, I find this proposal deeply concerning.

BCPS frequently states that it values parent and community input, transparency, and collaboration. If that is truly the case, why would the district seek to limit the voices of the very families these decisions impact?

Parents are not obstacles to the process—we are stakeholders. Many of us bring firsthand knowledge, lived experiences, and perspectives that help identify gaps, improve services, and ensure accountability. Limiting public participation sends the message that community input is only welcome when it is convenient.

Meaningful engagement requires listening, even when the feedback is difficult to hear. BCPS should be strengthening opportunities for parents to be heard, not restricting them.

Our children deserve a school system that values partnership, not one that silences the voices advocating for them.

I oppose proposed policy revisions that reduce opportunities for public participation, public feedback, or stakeholder engagement.
Public participation is a fundamental component of transparent and accountable governance. Parents, students, employees, and community members provide valuable perspectives that help identify challenges, improve decision making, and strengthen public trust in Broward County Public Schools.

Please vote No to Policy 0169.1 and its proposed erosion of community engagement. As a parent of a special needs student in public school, it is vital you hear firsthand what is going on in school and what we need for our students to be successful scholars.

As a parent who is new to speaking in this forum, I am concerned that the proposed change to the public speaking portion of the policy would limit meaningful public engagement. It is difficult for many parents and stakeholders to attend board meetings as scheduled. Restricting public comment to a single designated time slot, rather than allowing comments as agenda items are addressed, makes it even harder for the community to participate in a timely and relevant way. Just as board members value the opportunity to share their perspectives, the public should also have a fair opportunity to be heard.
I sincerely appreciate every person who takes the time to address the School Board in the interest of our students, families, educators, and community. I respectfully urge you not to limit or restrict the current public comment process. Three minutes is already a challenging amount of time to thoughtfully address one issue, let alone an entire agenda. Meaningful engagement requires meaningful access, and reducing opportunities for public discourse would ultimately harm the very families and stakeholders this Board is entrusted to serve.

Reducing or limiting public speaking time in a way is an attack on public participation.

One speaker brings the voice of many. I am grateful for all the speakers and advocates that are able to speak when I cannot.

Attending School Board meetings is a privilege many working families simply do not have. Between jobs, childcare, transportation, and other responsibilities, most parents do not have the time or capacity to follow every agenda item or decision that affects their children.

Public comment is not an obstacle to governance— it is a vital part of it. Limiting opportunities for community voices to be heard sends the message that public input is less important than efficiency.

If we truly value transparency, accountability, and community partnership, we should be expanding opportunities for meaningful public engagement, not restricting them.

Policy No. 0169.1 should be separated from the rest of the bundle to ensure proper discussion and transparency. Public participation is a cornerstone of effective governance and must be treated as a distinct, standalone priority. Instead of implementing measures that restrict or discourage community input, the district should actively explore avenues to increase stakeholder engagement. Community members frequently bring unique perspectives and vital local insights that the board might otherwise miss. Ultimately, our decisions are stronger, more equitable, and more effective when they reflect the diverse voices of the community we serve.

My name is Dr. Trudy Jermanovich.

Policy 0118 on Page 5 of 92 on the PURPOSE OF THE BOARD gives context on why the public has the right to have their voices heard, as per the Florida Constitution.

This is fully addressed within Policy 0169.1 beginning on Page 35 of 92 specifically on PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

Traditionally, an important policy such as one which changes the public’s ability to address the board would have gone through SAC and then be filtered through DAC and presented to the Board.

For most policies, there’s little controversy, but for changing the ability of the PUBLIC to address the Board for a maximum of 12 minutes at each meeting, the time has been drastically reduced to just 3 minutes. In addition, instead of being able to address the Board immediately after a presentation on EACH ITEM, all public comments on an item must be addressed at the beginning of the meeting. This Broward School Board is proposing that the time for public speaking for ALL items on the agenda start at 8 or 9 AM, when most people are not able to attend. In addition, the present policy (1020) allows for a total of 12 minutes/meeting on agenda items. This policy (0169.1) slashes that to just THREE MINUTES. Really? We can only address one item effectively in that amount of time.

The Board is changing this important policy at a time when most constituents are unable to express their views. This is being done quickly, during the summer months, which minimizes those who are available to attend meetings in person. I find this decision to be one which is unconscionable and should be changed back. This must be rectified today.

Put back into Policy 0169.1 the stipulation which allows public speaker’s 12 minutes at the time an item is presented to the Board as it has been done successfully since this policy was updated in 2025.

I caution each Board Member to remember,
“We watch what you DO, not what you SAY.”

We are presently in the midst of elections for new or re-elected School Board members. I urge everyone to watch how Board Members vote on this Policy and vote accordingly. The right to address the Board in order to better inform the way Board Member’s vote on Items is at stake. Fix it today.

Why was this added late despite staff and Board planning to bring this item since May 20?
Adding items late WITHOUT CAUSE impedes public participation, as it minimizes the public comment period on this exact platform. It also prevents stakeholders from being able to plan to added the daytime, workday meeting.

Why is this item so generically identified on the agenda? "School Board Policies" is not a sufficient descriptor for public notice. This vague labelling stands out against the more descriptive headings for the other 60+ items on this Special Board Meeting Agenda. It is antithetical for a government organization to veil its intentions by procedural means.

To the substance, this change will be to the Board's detriment. While it may be uncomfortable to hear from the publics, every Board meeting shows that public speakers connect the Board to community sentiment, contribute their expertise on substantive issues (law, accounting, tech, teaching, construction, etc), and, most important, bring factual realities to the Board's attention. It is not secret that the Board is selectively kept in the dark on issues for which they are legally accountable for oversight. The public routinely assists the Board in executing that oversight responsibility.
The Neola policy review project is pressing because current staff and previous general counsel failed to keep the Board in compliance with state statute regarding Board policies. However, the scope of this undertaking does not justify diminishing public participation. For years, public commentators and advisory volunteers have alerted the Board to the these compliance issues. If only those stakeholders were heard and valued, this Neola project (including the contract cost and Board time commitment) would not have been necessary.

Board members should know that if they vote to the erode public participation, then stakeholders will find other less regulated means of expressing their concerns. This may include online petitions, social media campaigns, and in person protesting. Ultimately, Board Members will be accountable to voters as they run for re-election and seek support for the Referendum.

I urge the board to NOT pass the current policy POLICY NO. 0169.1 as is. Please add the 12 minutes of public speaking time per person, maintain general public speaker sessions for morning and afternoon, and maintain advisory/committee reports to the school board (General Counsel did say last week that committee reports would be included in Policy 1070).
This policy, as is, effectively stifles public participation at school board meetings at a time when we need more engagement and to build public trust. Limiting public speaking to 3 minutes at the beginning of a meeting when most parents are doing school drop offs or are getting to work does not honor the community that the district or board serves. I support a morning public speaking time for those who can make their comment to all agenda items and must leave after that but only if the ability to speak to individual agenda items when they come up for those who are not able to make it in the morning.
I support allowing public comment up to 1 hour prior to the meeting, however these comments should be provided to board members or read into the record. Please preserve public participation.

First of all, having public comment at the beginning of the session is a terrible idea. Speakers should address the Board after each presentation, so comments are fresh in their minds before voting. Secondly, there is no way that any public speaker's time should be diminished in any way. You have already set too many limits on the time each person has to speak their mind. The public has a right to be heard. Stop putting up roadblocks because you don't like what they are saying.