February's School Board meeting was at its most intense toward the end, when Superintendent Alberto Carvalho and his team revealed what Governor Rick Scott's proposed budget would mean for Miami-Dade County: program cuts, school closures, pay cuts and layoffs. For that reason, although this was discussed around 5:30 PM, I am including this section first, as it is the issue that undoubtedly affects the most people and was certainly the most sensitive issue touched on at the meeting.
A-1: Superintendent's Announcements (Highlight: Rick Scott's budget proposal)
The Superintendent spoke to the governor's newly unveiled budget: it includes $3.3 billion cuts to education, comprising 72% of the $4.2 billion in budget cuts. Education is only responsible for 29% of the state budget. Carvalho said, "The governor is effectively proposing to balance the budget on the backs of children. Not since 1985 have we faced a situation like this; the FTE is now down to 2002-2003 levels. A $214 million budget reduction in one fiscal year is not sustainable without dramatic reductions in programs and an impact on the workforce. There are not enough administrative positions to cut to plug that gap. You could close down everything outside the classroom and you would still have to go into the schools and make cuts. I am not advocating an unsustainable position going forward; we know there will be sacrifice. There is a difference between sacrifice and defeat."Chief Financial Officer Dr. Richard Hinds showed a graph that illustrated education's role in the current budget as 29%, including unversity, community college, etc., and enumerated, "The cuts [to education] represent 72% [of the governor's overall proposed budget cuts]. The value of property taxes are not in this analysis, nor are the cost savings of FRS in this analysis. Community affairs and veterans affairs were very heavily hit also. The total impact on M-DCPS would be $214.9 million. We have a reduction in base student allocation to the lowest level since 2002-2003. He moves general revenue in to partially plug hole but then passes to general revenue the savings from FRS when employees will be required to contribute 5% of their salary. The state legislature created this fiscal stabilization; there is no filling. $70 million of that reduction does not involve our programs; it is a passing on of the problem to our employees. Our true cut from this governor's budget recommendation in isolation is not $214.9 million, but our employees are carrying $70 million of this cut passed along through FRS contributions. If you consider other factors that are impinging us, such as potential increases in costs in medical insurance, charters, capital outlay, if you consider all that together, you put these combinations all together and it creates a very, very heavy burden on the school district."
Oreida Mendez-Cartaya, the School Board's lobbyist, detailed the policy issues behind these reductions: "The reduction is a function of primarily 3 policy recommendations: First, the governor did not replace the ARRA money and that is a reduction of $115 million. Second, the governor is proposing a property tax reduction, meaning $83 million to M-DCPS. This was a campaign promise he made. The third issue is the governor is recommending that all state employees contribute 5% of their salary toward their retirement. This is a cost shift from the state to the employees of Miami-Dade. The budget has not been warmly received by the Florida legislature. Over the next weeks and months these policy issues will be debated and discussed in Tallahassee in committees and hearings."
Carvalho went on: "We need to be realistic and prepare ourselves to deal with the new economic reality. We realize there is going to be sacrifice, and this team will lead by example. We've done it over the past two and a half years and we will do it again. The first cuts will be taken at the very top. But no matter how low we go at the top, we'll never reach those numbers. Even a 50% reduction to [the cuts proposed by Rick Scott] would be impossible to cope [with] without hitting the schools. As we are realistic, as we ready ourselves for sacrifice leading by example from the very top, we are going to stand tough, be truthful, be honest, bring to you over the next couple of months, a number of resolutions to try to address the problem at the earliest possible point...The capital cuts are separate, not related to legislation but to a change in the tax base. We're going to be strategic in those reductions, we're going to move on those that we must move on aggressively before the end of the fiscal years. We're going to communicate with the community. We're going to engage people in joining our advocacy efforts. We'll have to demonstrate the courage to do what is necessary. There will be dramatic impacts in our school system. We will bring those to you based on the prioritization of impact at the school sites. What I cannot promise is what we have managed for the last two and a half years: no reduction in programs and no reduction in force. This is as realistic a scenario as we can possibly conceive at this point."
 |
| Board member Renier Diaz de la Portilla claims that making employees pay 5% of their salaries into their retirement fund does not constitute a "pay cut" since they will get that money back when they retire. |
Board member Renier Diaz de la Portilla countered the Superintendent: "I want to talk a little about the so-called $71 million exposure. You called it a proposal that would be on the backs of the employees. These aren't actual cuts to the budget; they're cuts that are passed down to what an employee would take home. That's money that the employee will get back at retirement. I have a problem with using those terms 'off the backs of the employees' because you're talking about a benefit that existed...it's a benefit that the state of Florida offered employees. Times have changed. Now that 10% has changed to 5%; they're still getting a benefit from the state of Florida. In my opinion the legislature will increase that budget. This is a worst-case scenario we're looking at right now. We need to show the legislature before this budget is decided that we're doing everything we can here, by creating a system that will create reductions among the salaries who can afford and sustain these reductions. If we have an employee that makes $90, 95, 100,000 a year, they can absorb a paycut. We know that teachers and bus drivers cannot absorb a pay cut like that. In order to save jobs, we're going to have to make some very tough decisions. We're going to have to do things that are unpopular to get ahead of the curve and have a proactive approach to this budgeting process so that Tallahassee can't say we haven't done enough to cut. It will be fair, with the ultimate goal of saving jobs but more importantly saving the system, to be able to do what we do without sacrificing that system...The superintendent has told me he would look at a sliding scale of paycuts where the highest-paid employees would sustain deeper pay cuts than lower-paid employees."
Once again, Diaz de la Portilla staggers the mind with his creative circumlocution. Let me get this straight: We were hired, being told that this was the salary we would receive and that the state would pay 10% of that salary into a retirement fund for us through the FRS. Now the state wants to pay only 5% and we will make up the remaining 5% of contributions to the fund. We are not receiving any sort of raise to offset this unexpected 5% contribution; it would just start disappearing from our paychecks. When we retire, we will not be receiving an extra 5% in our pension checks; it will be exactly the same as we were promised, only we've been putting in 5% ourselves all along.
Excuse me, Mr. Diaz de la Portilla...we're not getting paid any extra (and, in fact, are almost certainly not getting our step); we're losing 5% of our paycheck; and we're getting the same thing at retirement as expected before, when the state was contributing all of it. How exactly is this not a pay cut?
Though I suppose I should feel grateful to his comment that indicates he believes teachers are not making exorbitant salaries, considering he feels we should be spared additional pay cuts...?
Once again, Diaz de la Portilla staggers the mind with his creative circumlocution. Let me get this straight: We were hired, being told that this was the salary we would receive and that the state would pay 10% of that salary into a retirement fund for us through the FRS. Now the state wants to pay only 5% and we will make up the remaining 5% of contributions to the fund. We are not receiving any sort of raise to offset this unexpected 5% contribution; it would just start disappearing from our paychecks. When we retire, we will not be receiving an extra 5% in our pension checks; it will be exactly the same as we were promised, only we've been putting in 5% ourselves all along.
Excuse me, Mr. Diaz de la Portilla...we're not getting paid any extra (and, in fact, are almost certainly not getting our step); we're losing 5% of our paycheck; and we're getting the same thing at retirement as expected before, when the state was contributing all of it. How exactly is this not a pay cut?
Though I suppose I should feel grateful to his comment that indicates he believes teachers are not making exorbitant salaries, considering he feels we should be spared additional pay cuts...?
Board member Perla Tabares Hantman said, "I had never heard this until here and now, and I think that Portilla has valid points; I always say that we have to lead by example, and we should be the first ones to do that. If we have to cut anybody's salaries, we should be the first ones to cut our own salaries. I will be prepared to do what I did last year to contribute my part and I think that everybody will do that too."
Carvalho repeated his earlier refrain: "In times like this you lead by example. I think we've demonstrated that over the past two and a half years. We cut administration by 52%, far more than any other district. We have the lowest per-pupil administrative expenses of any district in the state. Everything is on the table, unfortunately. Including, obviously, reduction to salary expenditures. And if we're going to engage in reductions to salary expenditures, we're going to start at the very top. There is no way of filling that gap by doing this. It's a necessary move, but it won't get us where we need to get. You can't get there just by targeting the highest earning threshhold. We'll bring to you respectfully a series of recommendations. I cannot assure you that there will not be impact felt at lower levels. The magnitude of what we're looking at is so dramatic. We're looking at both the general fund as well as capital. If there are functions in our school system that are underutilized based on need at this point, new school construction, engineering services, we need to curtail it and reduce it. Whatever recommendations we bring to you will focus on the protection of what is important in the lives of kids and what touches kids at the closest possible level."
Perez spoke up: "I agree with so much of what my colleague Diaz de la Portilla has said. I even asked if this included the pensions, and it does...We do have a crisis in the United States and in Dade County, so we have to have discussions, we have to speak about these things and iron out these issues. I think at this point it's not a good idea to use that language--cutting on the backs of employees. Maybe it's time to take a look at that. As far as the symbolic gestures, it's like killing a mosquito with a shotgun; what is that going to do? There's such a big hole we have to fill."
Curbelo added, "This is a very delicate time in Tallahassee; it is so important for all of us in this community but specifically on this Board and in the leadership of the administration to speak with one voice and one message when we go to Tallahassee, when we call Tallahassee, when we address the media. There are many people in Tallahassee that want to help us; there are many people there who understand that the budget proposed will be very difficult for us. I'm confident that our legislators will do their best to mitigate this difficult fiscal situation the same way our superintendent has done here. We have a playbook, which is the legislative agenda; let's stick to our playbook. Secondly, I'd like to say that at the same time we need to be very honest with our community. We might have to close schools. We might have to consolidate schools. It's unlikely that we can avoid layoffs. It's a very delicate balance that we have to maintain, and I would just urge my colleagues to keep that in mind when they're advocating for our school, our system, the media; if we work as a team our chances of success are that much higher."
Karp said, "Hearing this and reading it is very difficult to deal with. The governor is talking about cleaning up the attic. I respectfully ask that the governor come and visit our attic, to see what is in our attic and to have the opportunity to learn about all the cleaning we've done to our attic in the last two and a half years. When you talk about cleaning up, we're now talking about cleaning up art, music, programs for students with disabilities; this is a very scary budget at this point. As it stands now, this will have a severe impact on everyone who lives in this community, everyone who lives in this state and there might be a negative impact felt not just today but for five or ten years."
Feldman said, "In order to get them out, someone needs to ring the bell. I appreciate us ringing the bell. Unless our employees know how hot it could get, they won't go out and buy a fire suit. Here's my concern: the emotional level. Right now we're asking our teachers every day to go into the classroom and prepare our kids, not to worry about the external factors, all the things the governor has said he might possibly do; don't worry about your pension, don't worry about DROP, don't worry about performance pay. The issue is, it's about our kids, and that's all it's about right now. Whatever you can do, whatever we as a Board can to do to ensure that our students in our care have employees who are the best prepared emotionally, we have to do. My concern is that I want them focused; they're professional already, they're well-trained, but I want to make sure that we find ways to ameliorate their concerns."
Bendross-Mindingall spoke up: "Having spent a lot of time in Tallahassee, watching the process of the budget and how it flows, I still maintain that it is the urgency of now. I don't think we should tell anyone that eventually this will happen or that will happen; people must eat now. They must pay bills now. When we talking about burning down the capitol and all of that, well, they'll just build another one. They don't think we know what we're doing, but they took our money. We're not responsible for where we are, but if we stay here, we are. That's on us. We've got to get to Tallahassee and we can start locally. We've got to educate the people. They don't really think we know what we're doing in Dade County. We have to let them know we will not take this sitting down. Our teachers, cafeteria workers, bus drivers have a quality of life they deserve. It's expensive to live down here. We can't wait for that conference setting for the budget that we all go in...it's already done. But we can make some changes, and we have to do that as a body, not for the purposes of a photo op, but for the purposes of our children, our teachers, our cafeteria workers, our custodians. We've sworn to do what's right by our children and I don't think we've gotten there. I think there are people who don't really understand what is happening. They don't know what it's like to live off a $30,000 a year salary. For some people it's less than that. They don't know; they've never had to."
 | |
| Board member Dorothy Bendross-Mindingall urges action. |
Dr. Bendross-Mindingall is correct: we must focus on the urgency of now. It is incumbent upon each of us to get the word out to our friends, colleagues, families and neighbors, and to the parents of the children we work with every single day. They should know what the governor, along with many of our representatives in the state legislature, have up their sleeves for us, and what it will mean to the programs they depend upon for their children to be well-cared for and to receive a well-rounded education. We need to contact our School Board members and urge them to preserve the programs that are important to our schools and to children's education. We also need to contact our state representatives and make sure they know that we will not lie down for these draconian cuts.
As UTD President Karen Aronowitz voiced at Thursday's education community forum, the rhetoric too often forgets, or willfully ignores, that teachers and school district employees are taxpayers. We are not simply leeches bleeding the system. They talk about cutting our salaries and pensions as if we did not produce anything. We produce the future and protect the present. When you talk about civil servants, you are talking about teachers, doctors, nurses, police, firefighters. We educate children; keep the streets safe; save lives. That the governor's cuts are targeted at public education, combined with his distinctly iterated preference for private schools, charter schools and "virtual schools," and his idea of "vouchers for all," demonstrate his disdain for public education and for the democratic (with a small "d") ideal of free and equitable education for all children. The implementation of his education ideology would usher in a new age of further inequality, where rich children would receive top-notch educations, middle-class and poor children would catch-as-catch-can, some faring well and others faring very, very poorly, and where hucksters would surely get rich by opening charter schools and "virtual schools," taking taxpayers' money for profits and shortchanging their teachers and other employees, and ultimately children and their parents.
This is no time for complacency. The very future of public education in the state of Florida hangs in the balance, and it is an issue that affects each and every one of us in the state, whether we are teachers or not, whether we work for a school district or not, whether we are parents or not. If we live in Florida and pay taxes in Florida, we are deeply and intimately affected by these proposed cuts and the host of other legislation designed to undermine public education and destroy the unions that ensure fair working conditions and living wages for those who serve children in this state.
We cannot allow legislators to balance the budget on the backs of teachers and, in turn, children.
Unfortunately, though budget cuts took the lead role in this month's School Board meeting, there are plenty of other pressing issues on the table. At the public hearing, UTD Secretary-Treasurer Fedrick Ingram took the microphone to ask the School Board to pass a resolution against SB736 (the reincarnation of SB6) as they did last year, as it is punishing to teachers, relies on increased testing which is unfunded, and provides no funding for the performance pay aspect of it.
E-1: Monthly Financial Report for the Period Ending December 2010
Board member Raquel Regalado addressed the Board saying that in Tallahassee, the question keeps coming up: what is Miami-Dade doing? How are we being proactive and saving? "We talk about it in committee, but I really want to make the point to our viewers, to our staff and to everyone listening what we're doing proactively to deal with our deficit."
Chief Financial Officer Dr. Richard Hinds replied, "The biggest test of how we're doing is the general fund, the largest of our five funds. If you look at E-14, there is a drop in projected FTE; we built the budget such that we were able to offset the drop in revenue. We're looking at two major situations regarding next year's budget. The governor's budget recommendation; looking at any discretionary general funds, not full-time salary funds to see if there could be some savings realized there. The year is rapidly drawing to a close so potential savings other than full-time salaries are minimal. Most of our expenditures involve teacher salaries. Nearly 85% of our expenditures are salary-oriented. We will have a staff budget committee meeting tomorrow afternoon to start planning for various eventualities. We don't want to panic our constituents, the public or our staff, but we don't want to be Pollyannas either. We will go into detail in the presentation on A-1."
Regalado responded that the time frame had to be considered. "We know that session starts in March. We saw many questions in committee. There are a lot of concerns how exactly this is going to happen." There is legislation sponsored by Sen. Gaetz that allows the state to privatize areas of school districts that are found insolvent.
Hinds indicated that they don't want to "overprepare and set off an alarmist reaction...We will have a balanced budget for '11-'12. We are moving forward."
Superintendent Alberto Carvalho clarified: "Our wish is to schedule a number of rapid-fire workshops with the Board, simultaneously with community town hall meetings, in terms of things we're doing this year. With the types of potential liabilities going into next year, should the governor's budget be realized, or a part of it, what should be our response to that...We've been successful in past years because we have not waited for the bomb to go off for us to actually prepare for it. There will be no outside hiring or internal movement of individuals that will cost additional money. We have frozen a percentage of discretionary spending at the district level as well as school discretionary spending. We are moving ahead with a necessary curtailment of capital expenditures. These are a function of local tax collections since we do not get any funding from the state. Expect as early as March or April for us to bring a massive resolution to rectify to current revenue receipts our capital program. More than likely in certain areas of this district where people's salaries are paid by capital funds, those areas are going to be impacted over the next couple of months. Next, we are engaging right now in program and leadership consolidation; we're not going to wait for next year. We are deploying central office staff back into schools to fill positions as they come open."
Board member Larry Feldman spoke up: "My concern is two-fold. The first one is folks that might be impacted by this. Are they going to be made aware in some form prior to that March strategic bomb that you're going to be bringing us?...I'd hate for some of our employees to find out after the fact. There are some employees right now who are very nervous; whatever we could do to ease their pain would be very helpful."
Carvalho responded, "The unavoidable truth unfortunately is not whether a reduction is going to take place, but how much of a reduction, and our level or preparation at this point is a must, and we must take into consideration the fears of our workforce. The very least we can do is treat people with respect and humanity for their contribution to this system, and we will do that."
Yes, he said it: there will be a massive reduction in force, not in instructional staff but among those whose salaries are paid for by capital funds, an area including construction, certain areas of maintenance, some clerical and some managerial exempt personnel.
The March School Board meeting could therefore bring some bad news for some families dependent on Miami-Dade County Public Schools for their income. I will be reporting that news as soon as it comes out, and hope that it is not accompanied by any other bad news concerning reduction in force or salary cuts; but as they said at the last meeting, everything is on the table, so the question appears to be not is bad news forthcoming, but how bad will it be.
E-17: Special Revenue, Food Service Fund
Board member Raquel Regalado brought up that one of the things that came up in Tallahassee was the privatization of different aspects of our system. "I agree with Dr. Hinds and the Superintendent; I don't want to scare anyone, but we need to educate people on what we do and how we do it, based on the lack of information. I think we've done a wonderful job restructuring our food service system and it's not something that would benefit from privatization. It's something I heard about in Tallahassee yesterday and it's something I would like to kill as soon as possible."
Hinds responded with an explanation: "Two years ago, virtually every school district's food service program was losing money. We beefed up the management program. The program itself today is not making money but it's making a little bit of money and it's a big-time success."
Board member Dorothy Bendross-Mindingall asked if any staff were removed from food service at school sites to achieve these savings, to which Superintendent Carvalho responded with an emphatic no, that nobody was removed from food service staff.
Regalado added to that, "Not only did we not lose staff, but there was a retraining and change in philosophy in the staff. When you visit the schools you can see the impact that it's had. We talk about people who have been in the system for a very long time; there is a definite change in the theory of food service. It's the same employees who were there before, but you've been able to change their mindset about what they're serving and how they're serving it."
Privatization does not necessarily equate to savings, and when it does it is often at the expense of the employees who are paid lower wages, are not entitled to state pensions and who lack a comprehensive contract. That we can achieve cost savings and provide excellent service without laying off or shortchanging staff is definitely something that should be brought to Tallahassee's attention, though they often seem to see only what they want to see.
H-10: Rehires
This item proposed by Board member Dr. Marta Perez would demand that the superintendent initiate rulemaking procedures to implement a policy that retired administrators be paid the salary of a beginning teacher for the duration of their employment.
She explained: "The process has been that in some cases some of the most expensive employees take a DROP, retire, then six months later return to their former job. It is a concern; the Miami Herald reported that DROP has been abused by double-dipping. This administration has been mindful of the potential for abuse, but it is arguable that absuses have occurred in the past. It is wise that we ask the Superintendent to devise an equitable plan and recommendations for us to avoid potential problems, and this is the intent of this item."
Daniel Diaz of the Dade Association of School Administrators took to the microphone to express his disagreement with the item, claiming that, as a result of the actions taken by the previous administrations, the district forced talented adminsitrators to retire early or resign, resulting in a loss of "brain power." "It is of the utmost importance that the superintendent be given the flexibility and latitude to move this district forward by making sure that the right people are employed in important positions."
Board member Renier Diaz de la Portilla stated his support: 'I support this; I supported it in committee; I don't think we need to rehash what was said. I think it is important that this School Board and the superintendent examine this policy and see what has happened in the past. The problem that the Superintendent may want to look at, primarily as far as it relates to the fiscal soundness of allowing an employee who has been in DROP to come back; that's where you have a fiscal impact." (It may be noted that his brother is state senator Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, a Republican who is part of the team in Tallahassee actively pushing to dismantle the DROP program.)
Board member Carlos Curbelo said, "I'm very happy with the way the item was revised, and I certainly understand how this item could be demoralizing to those who have given so much to this district and have come back to save this district, frankly. I also understand a lot of taxpayers are demoralized by reading that some employees have received their pensions and come back with six-figure salaries. These are very unique benefits. Benefits that are probably not sustainable in the long-term, given the fiscal situation of the country, the state and even our situation here. We all know there have been instances of abuse in the past; we also know that thankfully many bright individuals have come back because we really need them. I think this item is about finding the right balance and I'm confident the superintendent and staff will bring us something in April we can work with."
Board member Dr. Martin Karp said, "I don't necessarily agree with all the wording in the item but I'm supporting the item; it's the action that drives the item and I appreciate the revision."
Board member Dorothy Bendross-Mindingall echoed, "I too support the item; I just would like to add to this body the comments that I made in committee, and I maintain we do need a farm team. I do know we need people on the bench who are ready set go when we move forward. I hope the Superintendent will consider that we just don't have the people there to plug in when we have our retirees leave. There are people who want to come into these positions and maybe for those of us who want to go to an island or something, we can then move on and let others take over." There was a great deal of discussion during committee meetings that not enough has been done to "groom" people to take over these important positions, such as those held by Dr. Richard Hinds, Freddie Woodson and Edith Weisman, when they retire, and speculation on whether this was done on purpose so that their jobs would still be open for them to come back.
Board chairperson Perla Tabares Hantman said, "Teachers are to be rehired at step 12 of the salary schedule in recognition of the years of experience they bring to the table. Administrators should be able to be brought back without hands being tied. We all hear that school districts should be run like businesses. I can't imagine that any business would tie its hands from bringing in the best individual for a job."
Perez reiterated: "The message is that the Board should be as responsible as possible in hiring practices, especially in times of such fiscal disaster as the state is currently facing."
All Board members voted in favor of H-10.
H-11 Request that Superintendent initiate rulemaking proceedings to prohibit items from being approved on consent when speakers have signed up for these items.
Currently, agenda items are allowed to be settled on consent before a School Board meeting in the sake of saving time. Only the School Board knows what is on the consent agenda beforehand, and speakers sometimes wait for hours to speak on their item only to find out it was on the consent agenda. It is supposed to be used only for harmless and non-controversial items. Several speakers stood to express support for the item.
The item was sponsored by Board member Dr. Marta Perez, who explained, "A great portion of our agenda concerns items that have to do with taxpayers' money. This provision can be used so that items aren't put through without proper vetting. I don't think this item will be a major problem for our school district."
Other Board members argued that nobody is prevented from speaking on any item, whether it passed during committees or not, at the public hearing. During the public hearing, which is considered the same meeting, if a Board member considers it appropriate, the item can be moved to reconsideration by any Board member and the item can be heard at that time and reconsidered by the full Board.
Curbelo said, "The consent agenda is for items that are not controversial, and there is a mechanism in place to bring an item back for consideration if it does prove controversial. At this time I do not see a need for this item."
Karp echoed: "Nobody is dependent on a Board member bringing up an item to speak to an item. No one is denied an opportunity here to speak to any item on our agenda. The public is invited to attend our committee meetings. We do not curtail free speech; that is not what happens here."
Board member Raquel Regalado called the process counterintuitive. "We vote on something on consent, therefore the speaker knows that it has the approval of the Board. As a speaker, I think the reality is that it is disheartening to speak at the public hearing. For it to go back to reconsideration, you need the support not just of one Board member, but of one to second it, and for a majority to go back and revisit it. I think a solution is to make decisions earlier so that the consent agenda is accessible before the day of the actual meeting. I would like to see the consent agenda posted on the Internet..."
Karp countered, "In terms of the disheartening part, I understand what you're saying; but in my experience here people who feel passionately about something aren't disheartened, and speak to it wherever they get the chance. It would be possible for someone to sign up for every item, and that could happen today."
Perez called this argument disingenuous. "That has never happened in four years. People are discouraged, when they come to speak to something and they find it has already passed...What is the fear of allowing people to speak to us and maybe giving us information that we need to know? And as far as people signing up; you can sign up for all the items, but you can only speak for ten minutes. You cannot speak to all the items; it's impossible. Even if we have to stay here until three in the morning, maybe we need to stay here to listen to what people are saying, as we did during the times when people were speaking to problems in the budgets. A lot of us now speak in the past about those problems and those things, and I have to tell you that the reason that it was changed was to stop people from speaking, and that is not a good reason. It was to not allow certain people to come before us to speak and that's just inappropriate."
Curbelo argued, "You have my commitment and the public has my commitment that if anyone comes here during the public hearing and has a compelling case, I will voluntarily bring an item back to be revisited. I'd be happy to bring it back up for consideration."
Karp echoed, "Nobody here is not allowed to speak; people can contact their Board members and ask them to bring up an issue."
H-11 failed; only Dr. Perez voted in favor of her own item.
