Chair Studdard began by outlining the process for the meeting and explained that this is a quasi-judicial hearing and that no public comment will be allowed either before, during or after the hearing.

Each side was allowed 15 minutes to make an opening statement.  Petitioners' attorney made his opening statement first. The petitioners (the teachers) were represented by Attorney H.B. Stivers.  The respondent (school district) was represented by Attorney Nicole Smith.  

Each side was allowed 5 minutes to present their exceptions one at a time.  The opposing side was allowed 5 minutes to respond to each exception presented.  

Petitioners' Exception #1 and respondent's response was heard.

Mrs. Kerekes moved to deny Petitioners' Exception #1 because the law does not require ESE Support Facilitator to be certified in field.  Motion seconded by Mrs. Gilhousen.  Motion carried 5-0.

Petitioners' Exception #2 and respondent's response was heard.

Mrs. Kerekes moved to accept Petitioner's Exception #2 because F.S. 1012.731 3(c) is silent as to whether the teacher had to remain a classroom teacher during the 2017-18 school year.   Motion seconded by Mrs. Bullock.  

Following Board discussion, each side was given an additional 5 minutes to make their case on Petitioners' Exception #2. Motion carried 4-1, with Mrs. Gilhousen dissenting.

Petitioners' Exception #3 and respondent's response was heard.

Motion by Mrs. Kerekes to accept Petitioner's Exception #3 because subsection 3(c) carries no requirement that the teacher remains in the classroom.  Motion seconded by Mrs. Bullock.  Motion carried 3-2, with Mrs. Gilhousen and Mrs. Bolla dissenting.  

Petitioners' Exception #4 and respondent's response was heard.

Motion was made by Mrs. Kerekes to accept Petitioner's Exception #4 because subsection 3(c) does not require that a teacher remain in the classroom the following year.  Motion seconded by Mrs. Bullock.  Motion carried 4-1, with Mrs. Gilhousen dissenting. 

Petitioners' Exception #5 and respondent's response was heard.

Motion was made by Mrs. Kerekes to accept Petitioners' Exception #5 to Recommendation #1 because subsection 3(c) does not require they continue teaching in the classroom the following year 2017-18 and all three were classroom teachers 2016-17, the year earned.  Motion seconded by Mrs. Bullock.  Motion carried 4-1, with Mrs. Gilhousen dissenting.  

Respondent's Exception #1 and petitioners' response was heard.

Motion was made by Mrs. Kerekes to deny Respondent's Exception #1 because subsection 3(c) states teachers are not required to continue as classroom teachers the following year at the time of award and it is undisputed that Easter Brown qualified as a classroom teacher in 2016-17.   Motion was seconded by Mrs. Bullock.  Motion carried 4-1, with Mrs. Gilhousen dissenting.

Respondent's Exception #2 and petitioners' response was heard.

Mrs. Kerekes moved to deny Respondent's Exception #2 as to Recommendation #2 because subsection 3(c) does not require teachers to continue in the classroom the following year, the year of the award.  It is undisputed that Danielle Perricelli qualified as a classroom teacher in 2016-17.   Motion was seconded by Mrs. Bullock.  Motion carried 4-1, with Mrs. Gilhousen dissenting. 

It was noted that Board Attorney Bruce Bickner will now begin the process of re-writing the Recommended Order to create the Final Order which includes all of the School Board's ruling that took place in this hearing.