State board: Broward schools owe $80M
District has until April 17 to get into compliance; must pay money agreed upon to charter schools by Dec. 31
A state board found probable cause Wednesday that the Broward School District failed to comply with state law, saying it owes about $80 million from a 2018 referendum to charter schools.
The Florida Board of Education, during a Wednesday meeting in Winter Park, gave the district until its next board meeting on April 17 to get into compliance. Marylin Batista, general counsel for the school district, said that timeline may be too quick because the district must negotiate with 87 charter schools.
For the April 17 meeting, the district must have an agreement with charter schools on the exact amount the district should have to pay, with all money owed being paid by Dec. 31, Education Commissioner Manny Diaz wrote in a March 19 letter to Superintendent Peter Licata.
If the district fails to comply, it could face sanctions that include “withholding the transfer of state funds, discretionary grant funds, discretionary lottery funds or any other funds specified as eligible and declaring that the district is ineligible for competitive grants until such time as the district complies with Florida law,” Diaz wrote.
The issue involves a referendum that voters approved in 2018 for teacher raises, mental health and safety and security. The School Board agreed to share a portion of safety money with charters but no money from the other areas.
District officials say they are working quickly to resolve the matter, which is also the subject of three lawsuits from about 30 charter schools. Batista said the school district has secured lawyer and former
U.S. Sen. George LeMieux to mediate its dispute with charter schools.
“I think he has the respect of all the parties and will be able to successfully help us facilitate that process,” Batista told the board.
But district lawyers also sent a formal memo to the state board Tuesday night explaining why it would be well-positioned to argue against paying charter schools.
“The proceeds derived from the levy authorized in 2018 have already been collected and expended in accordance with the terms of the 2018 Referendum,” district lawyers wrote in the memo. “No lawsuit was filed against the District until after the disbursements had been made. There are, therefore, no funds remaining from that levy that could now be disbursed to charter schools.”
The memo argues sharing money from an expired referendum “would result in an inequitable windfall to charter schools, because those revenues were earmarked by voters for specific operational expenses in those prior fiscal years and cannot now be retroactively spent (i.e., the charter schools cannot go back in time and spend more funds on security in fiscal year 2020).”
However, in a letter to Diaz attached to the formal memo, Batista took a different tone, writing, “Please do not take the filing of this memorandum to diminish the District’s commitment to resolving the outstanding issues.”
Batista acknowledged lawyers are walking a fine line between trying to resolve the issue while not admitting fault on the part of the district.
“There’s a common standard provision in most settlement agreements that talks about the fact that you do not admit liability. You do not admit that there is a non-compliance,” she told the state board.
The state Legislature passed a law in 2019 requiring charter schools to get a proportional share of all money in future referendums. As a result, the district shares money from a 2022 referendum.
But the issue of whether districts must share money for referendums passed prior to 2019 has been the subject of lawsuits throughout the state. Several charter schools got favorable court rulings that Diaz said make clear that Broward must retroactively pay charters.
Lawyers for Broward schools argued the district is currently in compliance with state law because the district is sharing money from a 2022 referendum, which replaced the 2018 referendum. A lawyer for the Department of Education disagreed.
“They’re saying, ‘We’re currently in compliance. Don’t worry about the old or the past non-compliance.’ And I think that’s just wrong,” Andrew King, general counsel for the Board of Education, said at the meeting. “They are currently not in compliance with state law because they currently owe this money.”
The State Board also rejected an assertion by district lawyers that the Board of Education should not get involved because the district has been sued and is working to settle the claims.
“I reject the notion that this board doesn’t have the authority to act. If that were the case, anyone could usurp our authority just by filing a lawsuit. I reject that,” said Ben Gibson, chairman of the state board.
The district’s memo defending itself concerned School Board member Torey Alston, an appointee of Gov. Ron DeSantis. He asked the School Board on March 20 to pass a motion committing to resolve any outstanding debts with charter schools. After some tweaks, the nine School Board members passed the motion unanimously.
“I am totally shocked by the filing sent by the school district. It’s totally counter to the intent, tone and spirit of the board’s three-hour deliberation based on my motion that passed 9-0,” Alston told the South Florida Sun Sentinel. “The board did not authorize that filing, and I’m highly disappointed.”
Alston also sent a letter to Diaz and the state board voicing similar concerns. Board of Education member Ryan Petty asked Batista to comment on Alston’s concerns.
“I have spoken with the board member already and I can share with you he was not at the closed-door meeting where I received direction from the board,” Batista said. “He was absent from that meeting, so I’m not sure if there was a miscommunication on what the stance of the board is.”
Alston was absent when the School Board held a closed-door session on the lawsuits March 12. He was there for a public discussion on March 20 of Diaz’s letter, which had arrived the night before. The board hasn’t met since.
“I would suggest the School Board of Broward County take the opportunity to review the messages and responses sent by their general counsel to boards like this one prior to the general counsel sending them,” Petty said.