Sarasota County — After more than three hours of public comment Wednesday night, the Sarasota County School Board paused consideration of proposed revisions to its nondiscrimination and student code-of-conduct policies that would remove specific enumerated protected classes and separate student and employee protections.

The board tabled action on policy changes tied to agenda items 10.2 and 10.3 after the chair proposed language to cite the federal and state authorities the district is following and to show which categories apply to students and which apply to employees. The board voted 3-2 to table the student-policy items for further review.

Why it matters: Hundreds of community members and dozens of students attended to push the board to retain explicit protections for groups such as LGBTQ+ students, students of color and students with disabilities. Speakers argued that named protections provide clarity for administrators, encourage reporting and reduce bullying; supporters of the changes said the district must align its policies with recent court rulings and federal guidance to remain compliant and to protect federal funding.

The debate centered on legal compliance and policy clarity. School attorney Matthew Duggan told the board that federal and state interpretations of protected classes have diverged in recent years and that the district makes assurances in federal grant applications that its policies comply with applicable law. Duggan referenced the U.S. Supreme Court Bostock decision (employment context), a 2022 federal appellate opinion (Adams) addressing Title IX issues, and recent state action (House Bill 7) that the district’s legal team said altered how terms such as sex/gender must be applied in education policy. Duggan said Department of Education guidance and recent court orders left districts in a position where a single enumerated list that treats students and employees the same could create legal exposure.

Many public speakers, including current and former students, parents, faith leaders and advocacy groups, urged the board to "vote no" on removal of enumerated protections and to keep specific categories in the student code of conduct. Student speakers described personal experiences of harassment and said named protections mattered in practice. "If you pass this, there will be more like me," former student Cassanova Dougherty told the board. Community groups that spoke included Voices of Florida, Equality Florida, Public Education Network Sarasota, the NAACP and local faith organizations.

Board action and process: Board member Tim Enos introduced an amendment to add explicit language showing which protected characteristics currently apply to students and which apply to employees; the amendment was seconded by board member Marinelli and prompted further amendments and debate. A later motion to table the student-policy items was made and seconded and passed 3-2 (Yes: Barker, Ziegler, Edwards; No: Marinelli, Enos). The board also voted 3-2 to table the elementary and secondary versions of the student code of conduct (item 10.3).

What the board said: Chair Tim Enos, who presented the rationale for the changes, said the revisions were driven by legal developments and by the district’s obligation to remain in compliance when submitting federal funding assurances. "We make assurances that our policies are in compliance with federal regulations," Duggan told the board during the discussion. Board member Robin Barker, who moved to table the items, said the policy work "deserves more discussion" and that staff and the board should give the public and each other time to review written language before a final vote.

What remains unsettled: The board did not adopt final policy language Wednesday night and directed further review. Speakers requested more opportunities for public discussion, including additional town halls. The district’s legal references and the exact draft language the chair advanced will be returned to staff for written inclusion and distribution before a future board meeting.

Ending: The discussion was the focal point of a lengthy public-comment section that also included separate concerns about library-materials policy and a $45 million projected budget shortfall tied by speakers to voucher expansion. The board recessed action on the student-policy items to allow members to read proposed edits, receive any further legal analysis and schedule additional public outreach before taking a final vote.