Trustees approve consent agenda with minutes to be reviewed after public objections about master-plan versions

The New College of Florida Board of Trustees approved the consent agenda on Thursday after public commenters urged the board to clarify which version of the campus master plan had been adopted and asked that the minutes be corrected if necessary.

Several public speakers told the board that a redlined version of the master plan — circulated to neighbors for comment — differed in substantive ways from the clean version the board later adopted. "It is not clear from the public record whether the version approved was the redlined version or the clean version," said Judy Burns, president of the Uplands Association, urging the board to remove approval of the minutes from the consent agenda for separate consideration.

Board members discussed the concern during the meeting. A board staff member stated that the minutes "have been scrubbed by legal" and that, in counsel's view, the minutes are "legally accurate," but also advised avoiding substantive discussion of the master plan because of pending administrative litigation. Trustees then voted to approve the minutes "subject to a technical correction if necessary" and agreed to review the meeting video and documentary record to confirm whether edits are required.

Multiple members of the public had offered similar concerns. John O. Miller of NCF Freedom said two versions — a redline with tracked changes and a clean copy without them — contained different language and that "it is not clear which document you are voting on." Peter Schallhorn and Karen Stack raised related questions about whether redline provisions that had been presented as responses to public comment were removed in the final adopted file.

Separately, Ruth Follett urged the board to investigate air quality near athletic fields after she reported using a personal air sensor and finding elevated volatile organic compound measurements; she recommended further monitoring and suggested pausing construction if student health could be at risk.

The board's approach was procedural: trustees approved the consent agenda and asked staff to verify the record and make technical corrections where needed rather than delay the broader consent items. The board did not reopen or re‑vote the master plan during this meeting. The board chair said the minutes will be reviewed and corrected based on the video record if necessary before the official minutes are finalized.

What happens next: Trustees approved the consent agenda and minutes as amended pending technical corrections; staff will review the video and document record and report any changes at a later meeting or in the amended minutes.