Board debates resolution to ask county to place elected‑superintendent referendum on ballot; action postponed to April

Escambia County School Board · December 6, 2024

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A board member proposed a resolution to ask the county commission to place a referendum on electing the superintendent on the ballot. After extended debate about timing, past votes and contract rollovers, board members agreed to postpone the item and return it as unfinished business in April so legal timing and statutory questions can be checked.

A resolution calling for the county commission to place a referendum on electing the school superintendent drew extended debate during the Escambia County School Board's workshop.

A board member introduced a resolution to ask the Board of County Commissioners to put an elected‑superintendent question before voters, originally proposing a midterm primary placement with the measure to take effect in 2028. The proposer said the move responds to constituent requests to let voters decide and noted prior referenda in 2018 and 2023 where the public declined to change the system.

Board members raised procedural and policy concerns: some urged delaying the referendum to the 2028 presidential election to increase turnout and avoid disrupting district momentum; others argued voters should be given another choice sooner. The superintendent and other members described the district's recent progress and warned that frequent leadership turnover can be disruptive to schools.

There was no final vote on the resolution. Board members asked legal staff (Miss Odom) to check statutory timing and to confirm whether placing the measure as proposed would conform to state election law; the board agreed to postpone the item and to return it as unfinished business at the April meeting so members have time to review statutory constraints and potential contract implications.

The board instructed the item be reworked with clarified timing and legal guidance before any vote at a future meeting.