- December 4, 2025
Editor's note: Read Volusia County Schools' response here.
Always in search of unique ways to discourage public scrutiny while touting transparency, the Volusia County School District got creative. They drafted non-disclosure agreements for 113 of their staff to sign, because what they do is none of your business unless they say it is, and then it can only be shared in district-approved spin. They say the NDA “ensures only accurate information, information in its proper context, and correct interpretation is circulated.”
In other words, we are guaranteed nothing but the district’s spin, with no opportunity for opinion, analysis, or alternative perspective. What they do, how they do it, and who pays for it, is none of your business.
Three of the school board members agree.
The school district administration — not the board — created in the NDA at least five new categories of information and communication that they have decided are now confidential. Breach can result in “irreparable harm” to this “public” agency.
The definition they actually changed is that of “public.” But what else is new? Even as a board member, I have no access to legal counsel on board matters, and I have to pay for any records I request.
There is a reason Florida school districts don’t use NDAs in this way. The Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes say they can’t. Only the legislature can remove public information — written or oral — from disclosure, by first filing a bill that defends the public purpose to be served, and then getting two-thirds of both the House and Senate to approve it.
Volusia Schools has decided that doesn’t apply to them. They made up their own reasons. Under the law, their reasons don’t matter.
So two weeks ago, I broached this subject with the board. Our job is oversight of the district’s operation. When a constitutional issue is raised by district action, one might expect at least some measure of curiosity on the part of the elected officials. But no.
I analyze these questions as I did for 8 years in legal research and writing for circuit and appellate courts in South Florida. I found the answers alarming, so I prepared and shared my legal memo with the board members.
Of course, my memo was easy to dismiss because I am not properly credentialed in the world of “listen to the experts,” and “consider the source.” It also had not been publicly noticed and posted, so the consensus was to workshop it. The district’s general counsel said he would provide a memo from outside counsel to explain where I was wrong.
For the workshop, I paid for and provided a properly-credentialed attorney’s memo six days before the meeting, asking for it to be attached to the agenda item.
It wasn’t. It still isn’t.
Neither was the district’s memo. It was given to us as the agenda item was being introduced for discussion. We were given 15 minutes to read it.
The legal questions are clear, because the language of the NDA is clear. The district’s defenses did not cite either Constitution or statute, but relied on case law that in most cases applied to the private sector. And of course, we were treated to the obligatory MYOB message from the administration to the board — or rather, to me.
That was just fine with the board majority, who has yet to grasp the concept of oversight.
The obvious question is “why”? Why did the district need this NDA?
Beyond that are several equally important questions:
attorney-client privilege, and the board has neither, either individually or collectively?
At the workshop, both the staff attorney and outside counsel represented the district’s legal position. The district’s general counsel’s title includes “board attorney,” but we have neither equal access nor privilege. When I noted the obvious conflict, I was told that it had become "too costly" for the board to have that access.
The board members lost theirs. The district did not.
The board has surrendered its ability to challenge, question, or research any action by the district, and the district makes it as difficult as possible to get answers or information in any form.
How will we know whether information provided by any staff member in any form is all there is to know, and not just what the district wants us to know?
This board doesn’t care.
