Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews revision to district cell-phone allowance policy; members raise public-records question
Summary
The board discussed proposed language changes to School Board Policy 2‑20 (cellular telephone allowance). Staff said the revision clarifies safety and on-call expectations but does not change allowance amounts; the attorney and board members discussed how personal phones used for work are public records.
The Okaloosa County School Board reviewed a proposal to advertise a public hearing to revise School Board Policy 2‑20, the district’s cellular telephone allowance program. Assistant Superintendent Spolsky told the board the update “cleaned up some of the language” and did not change allowance amounts but clarified expectations about safety and duty and on-call requirements.
Spolsky described the administrative process for the allowance: supervisors designate levels of allowance on an MIS form and maintain a master list of eligible personnel. “There’s…it’s outlined in school board policy 2‑20. There’s a form that goes along with that, an MIS form, and then the supervisor for each of the departments designates should the person be at this level, this level, or this level,” he said.
Board member Destin asked how the district ensures compliance with public-records laws when employees use personal phones for business. District attorney McGinnis responded: “They are told that they understand that once they use that personal phone for business… the public records law is not based upon the kind of device or the location of the device. It’s based upon what’s done with the device.” He added that records remain subject to public-records rules even if the phone is privately owned.
Board members sought clarification about whether the district would be responsible for existing contract plan balances if an employee left the position that required the device; staff said the district would not be responsible if an employee left employment with the district, and internal moves are handled differently.
The transcript shows the item presented as a request to advertise a public hearing (agenda item 7.9). No formal board vote on the policy revision is recorded in the provided transcript.
Clarifying material presented to the board described the policy language changes as editorial and procedural rather than monetary: allowance amounts were unchanged, and the proposed edits focused on safety/duty definitions and administrative processes.
