Palm Beach school board moves to revise DEI and purchasing policies after federal guidance

The Palm Beach County School Board voted in workshop and special sessions to develop revisions and to repeal a set of longstanding DEI‑related policies, including rules on business contracting and majority‑to‑minority student transfers.

Board action followed legal guidance and concern about potential federal funding risk after a U.S. Department of Education “Dear Colleague” style directive and related executive orders were publicly invoked at early meetings. The district’s legal and administrative staff presented options that replace race‑ and gender‑conscious contracting language with a race‑neutral Small Business Enterprise (SBE) program and remove or amend policy text referencing “minority” or “women‑owned” set‑asides.

The board approved development or repeal of the affected policies in a series of roll call items (see actions). Most votes passed 5–1, with Board Member Edwin Ferguson recorded in opposition to several changes. Board members who supported the measures said they were following legal advice and attempting to protect state and federal funding streams while keeping district procurement and hiring practices legally defensible.

The policy changes prompted several members of the public to speak during agenda item public comment. Dozens of speakers representing community groups, parents and civil‑rights organizations urged the board to pause the action and retain the district’s DEI language. “These policies level the playing field,” said Max Fennig of Prism (a youth nonprofit) during public comment. NAACP leaders and local clergy told the board the changes amounted to a retreat from long‑standing commitments to equity.

Superintendent Michael Burke and Chief Operating Officer Joe Sanchez told the board the district’s procurement approach has been largely race‑neutral for several years (using SBE preferences) and that a formal disparity study would be needed to adopt targeted race‑ and gender‑conscious contracting again. Burke said the board’s direction sought to avoid immediate fiscal risk while preserving options to revisit targeted programs later.

Board members differed in public remarks. Some said they trust the district to continue inclusive hiring and contracting without the specific language; others said written policy matters because it commits future boards and administrators to the district’s stated goals.

The district’s general counsel advised the board of time limits tied to emergency rulemaking: because the board already took emergency action, any delay beyond the statutory window would require repeating the formal rulemaking process. Several trustees asked for more time to monitor pending federal and appellate court decisions before finalizing the revisions.

The board instructed staff to proceed with the rulemaking/development process for the proposed changes; several trustees asked administration to return with impact analyses and with a plan to re‑examine targeted procurement tools should legal conditions change.

The debate is likely to continue: community leaders signaled plans to press the board to pause any permanent rules, and civil‑rights groups said they were monitoring litigation that could affect the district’s options.

Ending: The board’s preliminary approvals set a timetable for formal development and a planned adoption hearing in mid‑July. Trustees and staff said they would also brief the public on what the administrative changes would mean for contractors, job seekers and students if they become final.