Broward School Board adopts amended general counsel job description, opens internal search and sets screening process

The School Board of Broward County on a special meeting completed a series of votes that together adopted an amended job description for the district general counsel and set a recruitment process that begins with an internal search and a report back to the board on Nov. 12.

Why it matters: The general counsel advises the board on a range of K–12 legal matters — from student rights and special-education (ESE) issues to contracts, construction and constitutional questions. The board’s changes to minimum and preferred qualifications and the decision to begin with an internal search shape which candidates will be prioritized and how quickly the district can name a successor.

What the board decided

- Adopt job description as amended: The board approved the general counsel job description as amended. The board chair called the final vote on the amended job description and announced the motion carried unanimously.

- Narrowed/clarified minimum qualifications (roll-call outcome): The board voted to replace the earlier “experience with education and/or school law” language in the minimum qualifications with a requirement that candidates have “10 years of experience in public or private practice with litigation experience in two or more of the following areas: constitutional law, student-rights/education, employment, civil rights, real estate, local government procurement, contract, tort, or construction law.” That motion passed by roll call, 7–2.

- Education/school-law placed in preferred qualifications: The board voted to list “experience with education and/or school law” in the preferred qualifications (rather than as a minimum). That motion passed by roll call, 6–3.

- Parliamentary-procedure preference added: The board added “knowledge of parliamentary procedures” to preferred qualifications and noted certification as a parliamentarian would be preferred; this amendment passed unanimously.

- Recruitment process and timeline: The board directed staff to begin with an internal search and to provide a status report to the board on Nov. 12 showing how many qualified applicants have applied. If the board is unsatisfied with the internal pool, it authorized discussion of an external search thereafter. The motion to begin with an internal search and report back Nov. 12 carried unanimously.

- Screening and role of HR vs. Legal Services Committee: Talent acquisition was directed to screen applicants for both minimum and preferred qualifications and to provide a ranked rubric to the Legal Services Committee. The board directed the Legal Services Committee (board-member subset) to evaluate ranked candidates and recommend finalists to the full board.

- Legal Services Committee composition and chair: The board confirmed the Legal Services Committee will be composed of the board members who serve on that committee; board member Leonardi was designated as the committee chair.

- Interim coverage: Staff reported there is an internal candidate willing to serve on an interim basis if needed; the board asked staff to hold interim staffing plans until the Nov. 12 update but authorized HR and general counsel to prepare recommendations if an interim is required.

Key debates and quoted remarks

Board members spent substantial time debating how narrowly to write minimum qualifications so the district could both broaden the applicant pool and ensure incoming counsel had education- and student-law experience. Ms. Batista, the district’s current general counsel, told the board: “Student rights, FERPA, ESE and contract review are the areas that we have the most volume in our office.”

Board member Mr. Severo pressed for high standards during the search: “I want the best. I want the brightest,” he said, arguing the district should not lower standards to expand the applicant pool.

Several board members argued for broader minimum qualifications as a way to cast a wider net and rely on the screening process to sort candidates; others favored keeping education/school-law explicitly in the minimum to ensure coverage of ESE and FERPA matters.

Process notes and next steps

Staff described two main recruitment paths: an internal search run by the district’s talent-acquisition team (lower direct cost; staff estimates advertising costs of roughly $5,000–$8,000 if additional marketing is requested) and an external executive search (industry fee typically 20–35% of first-year salary; some firms will accept flat-rate searches but procurement requirements could affect timing and cost). The board asked HR to begin internal outreach immediately and to report application totals and high-level screening results at the Nov. 12 board meeting.

If the internal pool is judged insufficient at that Nov. 12 update, the board will consider an external search; the Legal Services Committee will meet (publicly noticed) to review and recommend finalists to the full board. Applications will include a standard application and a cover letter addressing candidate background; the board rejected requiring an initial video and instead asked for cover letters in the application packet.

Votes at a glance (recorded in the meeting transcript)

- Replace minimum “education/school law” language with 10 years’ experience and litigation experience in two or more specified areas: passed by roll call, 7–2. - Add “experience with education and/or school law” to preferred qualifications: passed by roll call, 6–3. - Add “knowledge of parliamentary procedures” (certification preferred) to preferred qualifications: passed unanimously. - Begin internal search and report back to board on Nov. 12: passed unanimously. - Legal Services Committee to evaluate and recommend finalists; appoint Board Member Leonardi as committee chair: passed (Leonardi appointed by board vote). - Adopt final amended general counsel job description: passed unanimously.

What the record does not show

The transcript records extensive discussion about specific wording, board certification, and what constitutes “education law” versus “school law,” but it does not include any final candidate names, contract amounts for the general counsel position, or a final decision on an interim appointment. Staff said they have an internal candidate willing to serve as interim, but no interim was formally appointed in the hearing.

The board scheduled the Nov. 12 follow-up to review the applicant pool and to confirm whether an external search is necessary.