- December 4, 2025
Editor's note: This is a response of School Board member Donna Brosemer's My View, which can be read here.
The concerns raised about Volusia County Schools’ use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are not new but have been addressed in school board meetings, workshops, legal memoranda, and public inquiries.
The claims criticize the district’s decision to implement NDAs for approximately 100 district staff members, suggesting this undermines transparency and public accountability. That characterization is misleading. NDAs are a standard and lawful tool used to protect sensitive information. The district’s intent is not to obscure information, but to preserve the integrity of what is shared publicly. Transparency and accountability remain guiding principles, but they must be balanced with responsible information management.
The claim that the district has unilaterally created new categories of confidential information misrepresents both the intent and the legal framework guiding these actions. This argument overlooks the plain language of the NDA which is not inconsistent with Article 1, Section 24(a) of the Florida Constitution. Also, it is important to note that the plain language of the definition set forth in the NDA is “for this agreement only”; it is not to expand the laws or Constitution of the State of Florida.
Moreover, the NDA specifically provides that “Confidential Information does not include information that is required to be disclosed by law, regulation, or court order.” The district fully complies with Florida’s constitutional and statutory requirements for public records. NDAs are narrowly tailored to protect specific types of information that, if disclosed improperly, could cause significant harm to district operations. These protections are not arbitrary; they are consistent with legal standards and operational necessities.
The questions about the board’s oversight role and access to legal counsel overlook and misrepresent several key facts. The school board functions as a collegial body — individual members do not possess independent authority unless explicitly granted by the board as a whole. Legal counsel represents the board, not individual members.
Volusia County Schools employs a general counsel who provides legal guidance, policy review, and litigation support to both the district and the board. The board attorney is and always has been available to discuss matters with any member of the board. In arranging for outside counsel to independently review the issues raised, Board Attorney Dr. Evans acted ethically and within the scope of his professional responsibilities. His obligation is to advise the board in accordance with Florida law.
It is also important to clarify that communications between individual board members and the board attorney are not privileged. The client is the board as a whole.
Furthermore, discussions involving the board and its attorney are subject to Florida’s Government in the Sunshine Law, with limited exceptions for settlement negotiations and litigation strategy. These parameters are dictated by state law, not by the board attorney or superintendent.
Finally, the distinction between the roles of the school board and the superintendent must be clearly understood. The board governs, establishes policy, requests information, approves annual budgets, employs the superintendent, monitors progress, and represents the public interest. The superintendent implements board policies, oversees daily operations of district, reports progress, and acts in the public interest.
This division of responsibilities is fundamental to effective district leadership and is firmly rooted in Florida law.
