Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Litigation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Sarasota County School Board authorizes continuation of litigation against county tax collector

Sarasota County School Board · May 5, 2026
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

At a May 5, 2026 special meeting, the Sarasota County School Board voted unanimously to authorize initiation or continuation of litigation naming the board and individual plaintiffs against Sarasota County Tax Collector Mike Moran and directed the superintendent and legal counsel to implement the board's discussed strategy.

At a special public session on May 5, 2026, the Sarasota County School Board voted unanimously to authorize the initiation and/or continuation of litigation naming the board and individual plaintiffs against Sarasota County Tax Collector Mike Moran and directed the superintendent and legal counsel to carry out the board's strategy.

The motion to "authorize the initiation and or continuation of litigation in the matter of Sarasota County School Board, Brian Joseph Dunn, individually, and Laurie Verriere, individually, versus Mike Moran in his official capacity as Sarasota County tax collector" was moved by Mrs. Barker and, as recorded in the meeting, seconded by a board member identified in the record as Mr. Edwards. The motion directed the superintendent and legal counsel "to take all actions necessary to implement the board's decision as discussed during the litigation strategy session and presented in open session." The board conducted a quick voice vote and the chair announced the motion passed unanimously.

The case was repeatedly named in the meeting record; the motion included a case number read aloud during the session as 2026CA002313NC. (An earlier line in the transcript contains a different numeric rendering of the case number; that discrepancy appears in the meeting record and is noted in the meeting clarifications.)

Board members did not receive public comment on the item: the chair read public-comment rules and stated there were no speaker cards for the agenda item before the board moved forward. After the vote the board concluded action items and several members offered brief remarks acknowledging teachers and student scholarship events.

What the board did not do in public session was debate or amend the motion on the record; the ordinance directing further action directed staff and counsel to implement the litigation strategy that had been discussed during a closed litigation strategy session that immediately preceded the public meeting.

The board adjourned the special meeting and the chair announced the next regular board meeting would be Tuesday, May 19 at 10 a.m.