Below are the news briefs from the Leon County School Board meeting that took place on October 11, 2022.
__
The LCSB approved a number of agenda items, and they can be viewed here. But one of the items that got special attention was approving the Montford Middle School, Agriculture Program project, funded by Agricultural Grant for Montford Middle School Students.
Vice-Chair Alva Swafford Striplin noted that the school received a $52,000 grant for the “installation of electrical service, water and fencing for the Agriculture Program” rooted in an appreciation for gardening and agriculture.
_
The LCSB also approved an agenda item related to “freedom of speech in non-instructional settings.” The item was approved unanimously and stated:
“Administrative staff members, as citizens in a democratic society, have the right to speak out on issues of public concern. When those issues are related to the District, however, the administrative staff member’s expression should be balanced against the interests of this District.”
The item included some procedures that are designed to “help clarify and, therefore, avoid situations in which the administrative staff member’s expression could conflict with the District’s interests.”
Some of the procedures included:
- “state clearly that his/her expression represents personal views and not necessarily those of the School District,”
- “refrain from expressions that would disrupt harmony among co-workers,” and
- “refrain from making public expressions which s/he knows to be false or are made without regard for truth or accuracy.”
The full text of the addition to the policy manual can be viewed here.
__
The LCSB considered and approved an item that grants a contract to Fitzgerald Collaborative Group, LLC for “W.T. Moore Elementary School New Construction, Remodeling, Renovations, and Site Improvements Classroom Redesign Project.” The total cost of the contract is $615,526.00. The agreed-upon contract can be viewed here.
__
The LCSB also approved an increased pay scale for staffed positions within the district that include receptionists, registrars, and secretaries. The school district agreed to the new pay scale terms with the Leon Educational Staff Professional Association and is raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. The full list of the agreed-upon pay scale for each position can be viewed here.
__
The LCSB unanimously approved entering into a contract with the “Kirton Law Firm to Initiate a Lawsuit Seeking Damages against JUUL®.”
According to the school board the “lawsuit essentially alleges that youth were unfairly marketed to and became addicted to e-cigarettes and vaping products.” The school district is seeking damages associated with JUUL® and e-cigarettes.
The Attorney-Client Engagement agreement can be viewed here.
__
The full meeting can be viewed on the Leon County Schools’ Facebook page here.
Leon County School Board Meeting Briefs: October 11, 2022 added by Grant Holcomb on
View all posts by Grant Holcomb →
@ Nicholas Weed: Don’t care what the ARTICLE says, I’ve seen the Commercials and the Adds….Show me the Commercials and Adds that are aimed at Kids.
@ David…
You should read the article again and to say it’s not being marketed to kids is laughable. It’s specifically said, “youth were unfairly marketed to and became addicted to e-cigarettes and vaping products.” The school district is seeking damages associated with JUUL® and e-cigarettes.”
The School Board gets an “A” on this one.
@ Nicholas Weed: JUUL is not being Marketed to Kids, they are Marketed to Young Adults SO, with your Logic, maybe the LCSB should Sue the Car Manufacturers for Advertising to Kids with their Commercials of High Performance Cars doing Burnouts, and Speeding through the Streets of Cities and sliding around Curves. Too many Kids Die Driving those Cars. It is legal for a 16 Year Old to buy a new Challenger Hellcat Redeye and drive off in it but it is NOT Legal for a 16 Year Old to buy a JUUL. You go after the People who sells them to the Kids.
I think the class action lawsuit against Juul is a good thing. Anytime action can be taken against an entity who profits from harming are youth, at the very least, is being proactive.
I’m awaiting the day that this message board allows reactions to posts. Likes, emojis, etc.
@David — I, too, fail to see where the school board has any standing here. This is nothing more than a cash grab and I hope that it fails. I despise smoking and vaping, but allowing the school board to sue a 3rd party for the actions of its students is a really, really, really bad precedent!
I’ve also got a problem with the $52,000 grant for the “installation of electrical service, water and fencing for the Agriculture Program”. That’s still taxpayer money, just from a different bucket. Unless there’s a significant distance to the point of hookup, all of the utilities can be connection on the property for a few thousand. Chain link fencing isn’t expensive.
It sounds like there’s too much payola in this project…
“According to the school board the “lawsuit essentially alleges that youth were unfairly marketed to and became addicted to e-cigarettes and vaping products.” The school district is seeking damages associated with JUUL® and e-cigarettes.”
What does THIS have to do with the Schools and SCSB? NOTHING. You have NO claim to Sue them because it has no effect on the Schools OR the LCSB or the Teachers Or Staff. The Parents can Sue the Stores who sell it to their Kids, the People who use JUUL and got Addicted can Sue but I do NOT see where LCSB has a Claim.