On October 25, 2011, the Orange County School Board voted to close Richmond Heights Elementary School over the objections of community residents. The board voted to close the predominantly Black school even though there is an agreement in place that forbids its closure, unless certain conditions are met. The specific conditions of that agreement were never met. The so called Settlement Agreement went into effect almost two years ago.
It is an agreement made between the Orange County School Board and the Orange County NAACP. The District Court accepted this Settlement Agreement in August 2010.
There are several schools on the protected list, mostly predominately Black schools. This was done to keep OCPS from unfairly closing Black schools and busing those students to schools out of their general area. The agreement also guaranteed that these protected schools were maintained, renovated or rebuilt, as required.
Yet, with the Settlement Agreement in place the Orange County School Board found a way to get around the court authorized deal to close Richmond Heights Elementary. One reason given for closing Richmond Heights by School Board member Kathleen Gordon is that, the school had very low enrollment. The enrollment of Richmond Heights Elementary School is about 30% less than its potential capacity.
Jones High School is not listed as a protected school in the Settlement Agreement. Jones High School has an enrollment of about half its capacity. Does this indicate that Jones High School could be the next school on the list to be closed?
I reviewed the video from the October 25th meeting of the Orange County School Board to try to understand how the School Board could bypass the court ordered agreement. What I found was shocking. It appears to me, that the School Board’s General Counsel gave a report that misled the board. The board accepted this information and applied it as justification for the vote to close Richmond Heights Elementary.
Here are excerpts and comments from the October 25th School Board meeting. Decide for yourself if this vote was proper. You can view this video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9VzR-ZDV00&feature=youtu.be
Let’s evaluate part of the school board’s meeting as it pertains to Richmond Heights Elementary School.
Board Chairman Bill Sublette turned the discussion over to School Board Deputy Superintendent Barbara Jenkins. Jenkins, in turn, handed off the matter to Legal Counsel, Diego “Woody” Rodriguez who she said, “composed” the item and so would take the lead.
The school board had already debated the Richmond Heights, Eccelston issue in other meetings, according to Sublette. All that was needed now was the legal interpretation of rules as they pertain to the Settlement Agreement. This interpretation of the rules could give the Board the right to vote on this issue. The Legal Counsel for the School Board, Attorney Diego Rodriguez interpreted the Settlement Agreement in a way that gave the board the legal okay to vote on this issue. The Board in a five to three decision, voted to close Richmond Heights Elementary and expand the size of Eccleston Elementary.
I was able to obtain a copy of the Settlement Agreement. This 15-page legal document explains in specific terms the conditions by which Richmond Heights Elementary can be closed. Here are what I consider as the two major conditions that have to be met in order for the School Board to close Richmond Heights.
The first major condition that has to be met:
a: Dramatic Revenue Shortfall – The School Board has to believe that severe financial exigencies (e.g. Dramatic revenue shortfalls, significant reductions in operating revenues, etc.) require the closing of one or more of those schools along with other school facilities, to accomplish a necessary reduction of operating expenditures.
The second important statement made in the Settlement Agreement is:
b. A desire to reduce capital expenditures will not justify the closing of a school identified by name in this Agreement.
Richmond Height Elementary, is a school identified by name in the agreement.
During my research, I obtained a copy of an e-mail from the OCPS financial department which indicated there was not a dramatic revenue shortfall during the period in question. Also, OCPS’s web site shows the budget for the school years. This report shows a $37 million dollar surplus for the last two years. This proves that Attorney Rodriquez gave misleading information that caused the board to act inappropriately by voting to close Richmond Heights Elementary.
During the Board meeting, Attorney Rodriquez’ main points were “Dramatic revenue shortfall” and “the amount of money that would be saved by the district if Richmond Heights were to be closed.” Rodriquez should have advised the Board that it would be illegal to vote on this issue. The vote by the Board to close Richmond Heights Elementary never should have taken place.
This was an illegal vote by every member of the School Board. It shows the careless disregard the Board has for District 5 residents. They did not care to read the rules, or they did not understand the rules. Even though Rodriquez misrepresented the information in the Settlement Agreement, the responsibility of the vote rests with each member of the Board. Each is obligated to read and understand the issues on which they are voting. The Board of Education FAILED the residents of Orange County, Florida, in general, and Kat Gordon completely FAILED Richmond Heights Elementary, specifically.
Part II of this Richmond Heights School Board series will discuss how the Settlement Agreement came into existence.
I’m sorry, I don’t know why the link to the video did not work. Here is a working link. http://youtu.be/M9VzR-ZDV00
Please watch the video, and leave a comment.
Please see the following information from Orange County Public Schools General Counsel Diego “Woody” Rodriguez in response to this article. Please contact Kathy Marsh at [email protected] for any other information. Thank you.
OCSB LEGAL SERVICES MEMORANDUM
To: Orange County School Board Members
From: Diego “Woody” Rodriguez, District General Counsel
Date: Friday, June 01, 2012
Re: Response to Recent Reports Regarding the Merger of Richmond Heights
In response to a recent West Orlando online article and two other media reports, I am writing to provide you with some accurate information in the event that your constituents or the media may contact you regarding the School Board’s 2011 decision to merge Richmond Heights Elementary with Eccleston Elementary and Washington Shores Elementary. It should be noted that the information, as portrayed in the online article, is not accurate and this memorandum will help correct some of the key facts regarding the School Board’s decision.
Distinction Between the Settlement Agreement and Florida Law
First, let me begin by clarifying that the Settlement Agreement is a mutually agreed upon document entered into between the Plaintiffs to a long-standing, desegregation litigation and the Orange County School Board. The Agreement, however, does not have the same effect as Florida law. Therefore, any comments that any action taken by the Board is illegal are inaccurate, misrepresentations of the Agreement and Florida law.
Relevant Provision of the Settlement Agreement
Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is the specific provision which has been questioned in these reports. Paragraph 6 provides that in order for those schools identified in the Agreement to be closed, including Richmond Heights, the following conditions must be met:
(1) The School Board must believe that severe financial exigencies (e.g. dramatic revenue shortfalls, significant reduction in operating revenues, etc.) require the closing of one or more of those schools, along with other school facilities, to accomplish a necessary reduction of operating expenditures;
(2) The School Board must undertake all necessary and proper requirements of law for the closure of a school; and,
(3) The School Board must provide notice of the proposed school closing to the counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Orange County Branch of the NAACP by e-mail or overnight commercial service at least 21 days prior to the date the School Board plans to vote to approve or disapprove the closing.
Paragraph 6 also adds that a desire to reduce capital expenditures will not justify the closing of a school.
Page 2 of 3
School Board’s Actions with Regard to Items 2 and 3
It has not been contested that the School Board undertook all necessary requirements for the notice of the merger of Richmond Heights. Nor has it been contested that the School Board provided sufficient and timely notice to the NAACP at least 21 days in advance. A copy of the October 3, 2011 e-mail is attached for your review.
Notification and Participation By the Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Counsel for the plaintiff class, Norman Chachkin, who was intimately involved in the process of reaching the settlement of the desegregation suit, was also notified of the Board’s intention to consider the discontinuance of Richmond Heights Elementary School along with the comprehensive renovation of Eccleston and Washington Shores elementary schools and subsequent modification of zone lines in the areas currently served by the three facilities. He concluded that the proposal to do so was fair to the overall plaintiff class in that lawsuit and chose not to object to the proposal, a decision he confirmed in an e-mail to an individual who contacted him this spring about the matter. He has provided the school district with a copy of that e-mail and has authorized me to make it available to the school board and the Superintendent.
Additional Meeting with the NAACP
In fact, as an additional measure which was not required in the Agreement, various representatives of the District met with the NAACP Board to provide them with the rationale for the proposed merger and to answer any questions the NAACP Board had in response to this critical vote.
Basis for the School Board’s Decision
The only remaining issue that has been raised in the online article is the basis for the School Board’s actions in regard to the Settlement Agreement. With regard to the merger of Richmond Heights, it is clearly documented that the each and every school district in Florida has and continues to experience severe financial exigencies and a significant reduction in operating revenues as evidenced by the allotment of funding on a per student basis by the Legislature. Specifically Orange County has endured significant losses in revenues. Figures obtained from the FEFP – Final Conference Reports for Orange County substantiate that the 2007-2008 per student funding was significantly higher at $7,303.14 when compared with the 2011-2012 per student figures of $6,234.79. Similar information and figures were presented to members of the public and School Board Members throughout the process. Reports of a surplus funding in the online article are an inaccurate portrayal of the District’s ongoing efforts to stabilize recurring sources of revenue for students in Orange County.
Conclusion
In summation, it is my legal opinion that the District was acting not only within its legal authority but that based on the significant reduction in operating revenues the Board acted in accordance with the agreed upon terms of the Settlement Agreement. Further justification for the Board’s actions is evidenced in the correspondence by counsel for the Plaintiffs.
Finally, it should be noted that the District was not contacted in advance of any of the published media notices for a response. As such, I am providing a copy of this legal memorandum to Katherine Marsh to be made available to any and all who ask for it.