FLEMING ISLAND – While creating an instructional manual to review books and the so-called “bathroom bill” were two fiery topics at last week’s school board meeting, another item caught board members’ attention – the resignation of board attorney J. Bruce Bickner in the middle of the meeting.

The board then voted not to accept his resignation on April 14, but it extended his contract through Dec. 30.

The board still voted to approve the extension of his contract, 5-0, following a long, confusing and frequently hard-to-follow debate regarding the future of the attorney who has served the school board since 2000.

Confusion unraveled when member Beth Clark was asked why she pulled the item for discussion.

Clark admitted she was “blindsided” during the March 28 workshop, where talks started about Bickner leaving. She and other members later said they were unaware and unprepared to talk about his resignation.

“I think that three of us were called out for a question, and generally, I need a little bit of time to understand the ramifications of those answers. I’m not used to being given an ultimatum without negotiations. All I could think at the workshop was that if I didn’t go along with this, the district would be without an attorney, so I gave in,” she said.

“I was totally unprepared for a discussion of the enormous impact for our county and our citizens. There was no mention of us going to talk about this topic as far as I could find,” said board member Michele Hanson.

Clark said the school board should terminate: “There’s no simple reason that Mr. Bickner should remain for nine months.”

Ironically, that would leave the school board in the same position that Clark and others feared – being without an attorney. The last time that happened was during the beginning of Bickner’s four-year leave (2014-2018) from the position that he held for 19 years.

Hansen suggested the board has plenty of available routes, including contracting an attorney alongside multiple other counties in the state. The representative said she called 16 counties and three individuals from the Florida School Board Association.

“We have a lot of options, options we didn’t know existed,” she said.

The School Board has already been seeking to fill the position for five months.

Board members agreed Bickner should serve out his contract until the board finds a new candidate. Then, Bickner would become the school district’s attorney.

Superintendent David Broskie brought some clarity.

“I think that you are all on the same page in agreement with the stipulation that (Bickner) would stay on as the school board attorney in the current capacity

until a new school board attorney is hired,’ he said.

The board could then direct the newly-hired employee’s work.

However, they would need to re-advertise the role with a new job description, Broskie said.

“I think you’re all on the same page, but just talking in a different language,” he said.

Then, Bickner’s response:

‘I’m confused as to what you’re asking for. If you bring another attorney in, you’re talking about interviewing them on April 25. If you’re lucky, you can make an offer in mid-May and hire someone between May 31 and June 15. Do you think they’re going to know what they’re doing? Do you think they’re going to walk in and know how to do everything? If you think you can find somebody like that, then why am I sitting here talking to you?”

“We haven’t even done our interviews yet,” Clark said.

Bickner said he would be willing to complete his contract if all five members agreed he should stay.

“What I’m feeling right now is that three of you don’t want me to be sitting in this seat. If you want me to stay here for the district, I will not stay until June but until I finish my contract. (But) if five people don’t feel that way, my suggestion is to strike this from the agenda tonight, and Friday is my last day.”

That comment was greeted with applause.

However, after a long weekend of consideration, the attorney will remain at his post, with the school board focusing on working to improve communication that has been insufficient at times as they move forward in the process of seeking out a new candidate, according to board member Erin Skipper.

“We still made a motion to move forward with the contract ending in December due to the circumstances,” Skipper said.

“I believe that everything was cleared up. The majority of us were essentially stuck due to frustration about how the ball was dropped with hiring an attorney. The only option we had was to keep the attorney until we had a new (one). Bickner would not do a month-by-month contract and it had to be rescinded until December with the knowledge that he would be leaving after,” she said.

Skipper said that mistakes were made in advertising and conducting interviews for the position.

“We did not want it to happen this way,” she said.