Board schedules workshop after member calls to rescind nondisclosure agreement; legal split surfaces

A dispute over a nondisclosure agreement used by district staff moved to the center of the Volusia County School Board meeting Aug. 26, with one board member asking the board to rescind the form and others calling for a workshop to examine the document and legal questions.
Board Member Donna Brosmer introduced a motion she characterized as rescinding and invalidating “the nondisclosure agreement as written effective immediately and prohibit the use of nondisclosure agreements in the future.” Brosmer said she had drafted a legal memo and distributed copies at the meeting arguing the NDA was inconsistent with Florida law and the state constitution’s process for creating new public‑records exemptions.
The board attorney, Dr. Gilbert Evans, and district staff asked for time to present legal context. Superintendent Carmen Balgobin and Chief of Staff John Cash described the NDA as limited in scope and intended to protect specific, sensitive information created in the course of district work — for example, intellectual property the district develops on district time and certain personnel‑level details that are not public by policy or law.
Why it matters: The NDA debate raised two interlocking governance issues: the district’s organizational authority to require limited confidentiality for some employees or contractors, and the board’s oversight role when a practice raises public‑records or constitutional concerns. Board members said they wanted the public and board to have a clear explanation before taking formal action.
Legal and procedural split: Brosmer argued the NDA added five categories (budget, strategic plan, legal matters, private communications and “any other information the district may decide”) that are not exempt under state law and thus required legislative action to create an exemption. Evans and other district lawyers said the NDA was intended as a limited employment or contractor confidentiality tool, not a statutory public‑records exemption, and that legal counsel had consulted other districts and attorneys about similar confidentiality agreements.
Board action: After extended discussion about notice and process — several members noted the NDA had not previously been posted as a board agenda item — Brosmer amended her request to seek a workshop. The board voted to add a focused discussion of the NDA to the next workshop agenda; members approved the workshop motion by voice vote. No immediate rescission of the NDA or formal board action on the document took place at the meeting.
What comes next: The board attorney and district legal staff said they would provide a fuller legal briefing at the scheduled workshop. Board members asked for documents and for independent explanation of how the NDA has been used and which employees signed it. Board members and the superintendent stressed they wanted clarity for employees and the public; Brosmer said she sought immediate rescission but accepted the workshop approach to ensure a public forum. The workshop will provide both legal and policy detail before the board considers any formal rescission vote.