AMPHITHEATER PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Tucson, Arizona
MINUTES OF REGULAR PUBLIC MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BOARD
Place, Date and Time of Meeting
Wetmore
Center, 701 West Wetmore Road, August 10, 2004, 7:00 p.m.
Board
Members Present
Nancy Young Wright, President
Dr. Kent Barrabee, Vice President/Clerk
Patty Clymer, Member
Jeff Grant, Member
Mike Prout, Member
Central
Administrators Present
Dr. Vicki McLeod
Balentine, Superintendent
Todd A. Jaeger, J.D.,
Associate to Superintendent and General Counsel
Patrick Nelson,
Associate Superintendent
Ms. Young Wright called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
Ms. Young Wright asked members of the audience to sign the visitors’ register. Procedures for addressing the Board were described.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No audience members addressed the Board.
1. Announcement of Date and Place of
Next Regular Governing Board Meeting:
Tuesday, August 24, 2004, 6:00 p.m., Wetmore Center, 701
Wetmore Road
2. Recognition of Coronado Student
DARE Essay Winner
Ms. Young Wright
announced that due to a scheduling conflict related to the student’s family,
this item will be postponed and rescheduled for a future board meeting.
Reception for Newly Appointed Administrators:
Ms. Dondi Luce,
Principal, Prince Elementary School;
Mr. Joe Paddock,
Assistant Principal, Amphitheater High School;
Mr. Rex Scott, Assistant
Principal, Ironwood Ridge High School.
Dr. Balentine introduced and welcomed each of the
newly-appointed administrators and added that the District is fortunate to have
these talented educators join the District.
Ms. Young Wright
announced a brief recess to give audience members and staff the opportunity to
meet and welcome the new administrators. The time was 7:12 p.m.
Ms. Young Wright reconvened the meeting at 7:32 p.m.
3. Report on Arizona School Board
Association (ASBA) Delegate Assembly
Mrs. Patty Clymer
attended the Delegate Assembly, which was held in June in Phoenix,
Arizona. (Mrs. Clymer noted that since
Mr. Grant, the Delegate, was unable to attend, she did so as the Alternate.) She provided a highlight on four items that
she thought was of special interest.
The proposal failed
regarding whether to eliminate the requirement of having candidates for the county
school superintendent position hold a teaching certificate. Contrary to original speculation, rural
areas did not support this proposal.
Proposals that did
pass were: a proposal that supports an increase in square footage allocation,
per student from the School Facilities Board (SFB); a proposal that encourages legislation to increase the number of
days used in transportation support-level calculations from 175 to 180
days; a proposal that would delay
notifying teachers from April 15th to June 15th regarding
re-employment for the following school year.
There are hopes that the State budget will be complete by the June date
thereby allowing funding amounts to be known and removing the need to
unnecessarily informing teachers that their contracts may not be renewed.
Mrs. Clymer added
that a constant theme expressed by a majority of districts was to support
retaining control at the local level.
Mrs. Clymer responded to Ms. Young
Wright’s inquiry about what the next step is in this process. She stated that each delegate is provided a
complete listing of all the proposals and are then asked to select their own
top ten selections. These votes are
tallied and the top ten proposals then become the ASBA’s agenda and taken to
the Legislature in the coming year. It
is not currently known what those tallied results are; this information will be
provided to board members at a later time..
Ms. Young Wright expressed
appreciation to Mrs. Clymer for representing Amphi at this event.
4. Report on 2004 Summer School
Dr. Balentine introduced Ms. Eiting, who provided a
progress update of information on the 2004
Summer School Program (a four-week session).
She explained that since the update provided in April 2004, teachers had
participated in a three-day session defining curriculum for the summer school
program. That process included
reviewing district-wide data and student performance. Teachers spent time on
designing curriculum and units of study to support State Standards and
skill-clusters during summer school.
Ms. Eiting stated
that she visited classrooms at all eleven sites; she shared observations made
during those visitations. She reported that teacher/student ratios
were: 1) elementary school level -1
teacher/13 students; 2) middle school level – 1 teacher/16 students; 3) high
school level - 1 teacher/14 students. The units of study centered
around action and adventure and lessons on reading, writing, and mathematics. Feedback received from teachers and students
was favorable. Teachers were
appreciative of their participation experience in the initial
curriculum-planning stages. Due to the pace and student/teacher ratios, they
were able to try some new approaches.
Administrators conducted formal classroom observations to collect data
on learning activities and instructional practices. Teachers measured student performance during the program and on
specific target standards; students received pass/fail grades and high school
students earned ½ elective credit for their participation. Administration had anticipated student
enrollment at approximately 1,000 students; in reality enrollment reached
approximately 1,300 and more than 100 teachers participated.
The program
evaluation process will continue with a follow-up meeting scheduled for later
in August to review this year’s program and to begin planning for next
year. Ms. Eiting plans to report further details and additional data when
completed in September.
5. Report on Effective Teaching
Conference
Dr. Balentine introduced Ms. Eiting, who provided a summary
of the event, which was held on August 4-5, 2004. Initially, this conference began eleven years ago as a Career
Ladder project to support new teachers entering into the District. This year, 149 new Amphi teachers attended
the event. New teachers were introduced
to administrators and principals.
Various department personnel provided information, including the
District’s teacher evaluation instrument.
New teachers provided input regarding recruiting strategies. Many hours of training were provided on the
Six Traits of Writing, Standards on reading, writing, and mathematics, and
District assessments, as well as, training on the School Improvement Process,
expectations for collaboration and professional growth, 21st Century
Workplace skills, and classroom management skills. Continued support will be provided throughout the year via
on-going workshops and mentoring. The
same video that was shown at the conference was shown to board and audience
members.
Literacy tote bags, filled with donated supplies from local
vendors were given to all new teachers; Ms. Eiting also presented one to each
board member.
Ms. Eiting expressed appreciation to the assemblage of
teachers and staff, crediting their efforts in coordinating this year’s successful
event, including Ms. Deanna Day, Career Ladder manager, the Career Ladder
department staff, other staff developers, senior staff, and also to AEA for
their participation and for providing lunch.
The feedback received was positive and will be utilized and considered
when planning for next year’s conference.
CONSENT AGENDA
A motion was made by Dr. Barrabee to approve consent agenda items A - Q. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Clymer and passed unanimously, 5-0. Appointment of personnel is effective, provided all district, state and federal requirements are met.
A. Approval of
Minutes of Previous Meeting
Minutes of the July
6, 2004 Governing Board meeting were approved.
B. Appointment of
Personnel - Revised
Certified and
classified personnel were appointed, as listed in Exhibit 1.
C. Personnel
Changes
Certified and
classified personnel changes were approved, as listed in Exhibit 2.
D.
Approval of
Vouchers Totaling and Not Exceeding Approximately $1,082,000.00 (Final Total)
The following vouchers were approved as presented and payment authorized:
Vo. 644 $ 151,820.70
Vo. 706
396,836.37
Vo. 707
21,681.08
Vo. 708
51,707.51
Vo. 709
222,703.66
Vo. 710
15,702.46
Vo. 711
372,484.97
E.
Acceptance of Gifts
Donations were
accepted by the Governing Board, as listed in Exhibit 3.
F.
Receipt of Monthly
Report on School Auxiliary and Club Balances (June)
Board
Book Information: Arizona Revised Statutes §15-1121 and 15-1125 provide for the operation
of Student Activity and Auxiliary Operations funds, respectively. The Uniform System of Financial Records for
Arizona School Districts (USFR) outlines procedures to be followed by school
districts in the disbursements of monies from either of these funds. One requirement for the operational
compliance is to provide a report to the Governing Board summarizing the
transactions for the month.
The Governing Board received the Monthly Report on School Auxiliary and Club Balances for month-end June 30, 2004, as submitted.
G.
Request to
Terminate Early Retiree Contract with Special Benefits
Board Book
Information: Elvia Garcia-Lord is being recommended for the termination of her early
retirement contract. Ms. Garcia-Lord,
former Special Education Records Specialist at Wetmore Center is 28.6 days in
arrears in her service requirement.
The Governing Board
approved the termination of the early retirement contract for Ms. Elvia
Garcia-Lord, effective August 31, 2004.
All early retirement compensation and insurance benefits will end on
that date.
H.
Approval of
Out-of-State Travel
Out-of-state travel was approved for staff (source of funding indicated): Patrick Nelson and Cathy Eiting from Wetmore Administration to attend the National Staff Development Council meeting in Vancouver BC, Canada, December 2-8, 2004 (grant funds).
I.
Approval of Payment
of Annual Fees to the Arizona Interscholastic Association
Board Book
Information: The Arizona Interscholastic
Association (AIA) Mission is to promote maximum student participation by
providing AIA schools with an even playing field to ensure fair and equitable
competition in interscholastic competition. Member schools are required to
abide by all rules and regulations as established by the AIA member schools.
The AIA Legislative Council has authority in all matters
pertaining to interscholastic activities in the five conferences in which they
may participate. The Executive Board of the AIA applies, interprets and
impartially enforces all AIA rules and regulations.
The AIA is the sole organization within the State of
Arizona, which provides and organizes competitive interscholastic events for
high schools. All other competing
schools throughout the state also compete through AIA.
The
Governing Board approved the determination that AIA is the sole source provider
for interscholastic competitive events throughout the state and approved the
payment of annual fees in the amount of $20,283.37 for the District’s three
high schools (Ironwood Ridge, Canyon del Oro, and Amphitheater High).
J. Approval
of Textbooks for Adoption
TEXTBOOK: Sociology and You
Publisher: Glencoe
(National Textbook Company); Author: Shepard/Greene; Price: $58.50
Deutsch Aktuell 1
Publisher:
EMC/Paradigm; Author: Wolfgang S. Kraft; Price: $51.95
College Algebra, 3rd Edition
Publisher:
Brooks/Cole; Author: Stewart,
Redlin, Watson; Price: $105.25
Hospitality Services – Food & Lodging
Publisher:
Goodheart-Wilcox Corp; Author:
Johnny Reynolds; Price: $50.00
In
accordance with Section 15-721 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, the textbooks
shown have been on display to the public for 60 days. The Governing Board approved the adoption of these textbooks, as
of this date, August 10, 2004.
K.
Review
and Approval of Grants
1.
NAU
Arizona K-12 Center Math and Parent Partnerships with the Schools (MAPPS)
(La Cima Middle school)
2.
U.S.
Department of Education/Office of Vocational and Adult Education Smaller
Learning Communities Program
(Amphitheater High School)
Board Book
Information: La Cima Middle School has received $7,928 from the Northern Arizona
University, Arizona K-12 Center to implement the MAPPS program during the
2004-05 school year. The MAPPS program
will provide parents with the skills, strategies and techniques to assist their
children while doing math homework.
Amphitheater High School has received a planning grant in
the amount of $49,964 from the Smaller Learning Communities program. This program is designed to promote academic
achievement through the planning, implementation or expansion of small, safe,
and successful learning environments in large public high schools. Amphitheater High School’s program will
develop strategies and interventions designed to ensure that all high school
students acquire the reading/language arts and mathematics skills they need to
participate successfully in rigorous academic courses that will equip them with
the knowledge and skills necessary to transition successfully to postsecondary
education, an apprenticeship, or advanced training.
The Governing Board approved the grants, as listed
above.
L.
Approval of
Facilities Use Fees
Board Book
Information: Attached are rates and fee breakdowns for facilities usage fees based
on non-profit, for-profit, granted waiver status, and pending waiver
status. Gymnasiums, MPR’s and fields
have been used for a breakdown in costs.
A four-hour time frame was used for rooms, and a 12-week season was used
for fields.
The
Governing Board approved the Facilities Usage Fee Schedule and Fee Breakdown as
submitted for the 2004-2005 school year
M.
Disposal of Surplus
Air Handlers at Walker Elementary School
Board Book Information: A
Notice of Request for Bid 03-0087, HVAC Equipment for Sale was mailed to
thirteen companies supplying HVAC equipment to the Tucson metropolitan area.
The air handlers located at Walker Elementary School are outdated technology,
no longer operational and have all since been replaced with updated, energy
efficient units.
The HVAC Equipment for Offered Sale is:
1. Air handler room beside 11 south:
Contains Carrier Model 39W10
769; Serial #64240676VR - Remove entire unit and all associated pipe and
control panel.
2.
Air handler room beside 6 south:
Contains Trane compressor Model 3F5B80, Serial #061088KKJ and Motor
Model AVDP. Air Handler Type 21 Serial
#V59017 - Remove all units in their entirety and all associated piping.
3.
Air Handler behind Library: Contains
Trane Model 14 Serial #509018 and motor Serial
#1-4V5810 - Remove entire unit and associated
pipe.
A
notice of Equipment for Sale, (RFB 03-0087) was advertised twice in the Arizona
Daily Star. The Purchasing Department received two responses to this Request
for Bid, both were no bid. This equipment now over 35 years old has no economic
value other than the scrap value offered by a metal recycler.
With Governing Board approval,
the Facilities Support Services Department will contract with a salvage company
for the removal of the three air handlers at Walker School. There will be no
fee charged as the salvage value will cover the companies cost of removal.
Removal will be through existing doorways which will require teardown of all
equipment. The Facilities Support Services Department has determined having a
salvage company remove these very large HVAC units is both cost efficient and
safer as the salvage company specializes in removal of this type of heavy
equipment.
R7-2-1131. Material Management and Disposition
B. The school district shall determine
the fair market value of excess and surplus property.
C. Disposition of surplus materials.
1. Except as
provided in A.R.S. § 15-342(7) related to sales or leases to the state, county
or city, and A.R.S. § 15-342(18) related to the disposition of surplus or
outdated learning materials, surplus materials, regardless of value, shall be
offered through competitive sealed bids, public auction, established markets,
trade in, posted prices or state surplus property. If unusual circumstances
render the above methods impractical, the school district may employ other
disposition methods, including appraisal or barter, provided the school
district makes a determination that such procedure is advantageous to the
school district.
The
Governing Board approved the disposal of the three each Surplus Air Handlers
located at Walker School.
N.
Approval of First
Amendment to Business Loan Agreement Between Board of Supervisors of Pima
County and Bank of America Relating to Line of Credit for Benefit of District
Board Book
Information: As the Board is aware,
District’s funds are held by the Pima County Treasurer, as they are collected
from tax revenues. Occasionally, the
timing of revenue collection follows expenditure requirements, necessitating
use of short term borrowing to ensure adequate cash flow for the district. Pima County then borrows funds, on behalf
of the District, pursuant to a line of credit between Bank of America and the
County. This is a common practice; the
County does so for other Pima County school districts as well.
The Bank has prepared the attached amendment to the existing
line of credit agreement. It provides
for a $6,000,000 line of credit and a prime interest rate.
Legal counsel has reviewed the attached agreement. It is in standard and appropriate form. Counsel must issue a legal opinion to Bank
of America as to validity of the agreement and other issues. A form of opinion which counsel will generally
follow is also attached for the Board’s information.
The Governing Board approved the First Amendment to the Business Loan Agreement between the Board of Supervisors of Pima County and the Bank of America relating to the Line of Credit for benefit of the District, as submitted and shown in Exhibit 4, pp 1-9.
O.
Authorization to Participate
in the Southern Arizona Purchasing Consortium
Board Book Information: The
following school districts have entered into a Cooperative Purchasing Agreement
to, on select commodities, take advantage of volume pricing achieved through
combined buying; Benson Unified School District, Flowing Wells Unified School
District, Marana Unified School District, Nogales Unified School District,
Sunnyside Unified School District, Tucson Unified School District and Vail
Unified School District.
The
Amphitheater Unified School District has identified a potential saving in the
cost of diesel fuel and unleaded gasoline available through a SAPC Consortium
Purchase. Unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel is currently purchased from a state
contract.
Mr.
Mark Lappitt, Amphitheater Transportation Director has worked with other SAPC
member Transportation Directors to create a Request for Bid to: 1) obtain best
pricing for unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel and 2) to contract for annual
requirements of each fuel, (gallons used).
A
Cooperative Purchasing Agreement must be completed with SAPC members prior to
issuing this bid.
R7-2-1191. Cooperative purchasing authorized
A school district may either participate in, sponsor,
conduct, or administer a cooperative purchasing agreement for the procurement
of any materials, services, or construction with one or more public procurement
units in accordance with an agreement entered into between the participants. An
agreement entered into as provided in Sections R7-2-1191 through R7-2-1195 is
exempt from A.R.S. § 11-952, subsections (D), (E) and (F). Parties under a
cooperative purchasing agreement may:
1. Sponsor,
conduct, or administer a cooperative agreement for the procurement or disposal
of any materials, services or construction.
2.
Cooperatively use materials or services.
3. Commonly
use or share warehousing facilities, capital equipment and other facilities.
4. Provide
personnel, except that the requesting public procurement unit shall pay the public
procurement unit providing the personnel the direct and indirect cost of
providing the personnel, in accordance with the agreement.
5. On request,
make available to other public procurement units informational, technical or
other services that may assist in improving the efficiency or economy of
procurement. The public procurement unit furnishing the informational or
technical services has the right to request reimbursement for the reasonable
and necessary costs of providing such services.
The activities described in subsections (1) through (5) do
not limit what parties may do under a cooperative purchasing agreement.
Adopted
effective December 17, 1987 (Supp. 87-4).
The Governing Board
authorizes Administration to
participate in the Southern Arizona Purchasing Consortium, (SAPC) for the
purchase of diesel fuel & unleaded gasoline and other select commodities
for which the District would benefit.
P.
Approval of
Resolution Authorizing the Execution of Warrants Between Board Meetings -
Revised
Board
Book Information: Governing Board Policy DK directs that “the prompt payment of salaries
and bills, but only after due care has been taken to assure that such amounts
represent proper obligations of the District for services and/or materials
received.”
Governing Board Policy Exhibit
DK-E sets forth language to be utilized for a Governing Board Resolution to
authorize the execution of warrants between Board meetings. A form of Resolution is attached for the
Board’s convenience (A.R.S. §15-321(G)).
The Governing
Board approved the use of a Resolution, authorizing the execution of warrants
between Board meetings, as submitted and shown in Exhibit 5.
Q. Separation(s)
and Termination(s)
Certified and
classified personnel separations were approved, as listed in Exhibit 6.
6.
Approval
of Proposed Revisions to Governing Board Policy JIH Regarding Student
Interviews, Searches, and Arrests
Board Book Information:
This Item was originally studied
at the Board’s meeting of June 22, 2004.
Revisions suggested at that meeting are incorporated as instructed.
Arizona
School Board Association’s model policy JIH (Student Interrogations, Searches,
and Arrests) was challenged by the Maricopa County Attorney's Office in
relation to the interview of students on a school campus by a peace
officer. On May 26, 2004 the Attorney
General issued Opinion No. I04-003 on this matter in response to a request from
Senator Slade Mead and Representative Linda Lopez. Based upon this most recent opinion and information received from
ASBA Policy Services, the administration believes that an expansion of the
District’s current policy and corresponding refinement of the administrative
regulation would serve the best interests of the district.
Amphitheater’s
current policy is divided into two categories:
Interrogations and Searches. The
revised policy would be divided into three categories: Interviews, Searches and
Arrest, to help clarify the appropriate procedures to follow in each distinct
situation. The administration’s regulation,
JIH-R, will also be modified to reflect “interviews.”
Interviews
Within the Interview category there are two different
scenarios discussed depending upon the agency and the authority under which the
action is taken.
Scenario
One: alleged child abuse or
abandonment.
Arizona
State Statutes permit law enforcement authorities, child protective services
(CPS) and peace officers (police) great latitude in the investigation of child
abuse and abandonment. This latitude includes interviewing the child, siblings
and others who live with the child, in the school setting, without
parents/guardian or school personnel present.
If necessary, CPS and/or the police may take the child or children into
temporary custody. The statutes give
preference to CPS for the investigation of abuse involving family members.
In
cases where temporary custody is taken by either CPS or the police, the
parent(s)/guardian is to be notified of the custody situation by the CPS or
police with custody within six (6) hours, in accordance with A.R.S. 8-823. For this reason, the draft would place a six
(6) hour hiatus on discussion with the parents in child abuse and abandonment
interview situations where the child is in temporary custody. After that time period, the school may
respond to the parent(s)/guardian on the whereabouts of the child to establish
that custody has been relinquished by the school in a lawful manner.
When
a student is taken into protective (temporary) custody on campus by law
enforcement, it is the responsibility of the school to request the
identification and the authority of the person taking the student into
custody. This position is supported in
similar terms by Arizona Attorney General Opinion (AGO) I82-094. If the person refuses to respond with the
proper information, it would be appropriate for the school to call local law
enforcement officials with whom they may be familiar. It is the responsibility of the school to establish the identity
of any person taking custody of a child from the school.
Scenario
Two: Instances that do not involve
child abuse or abandonment.
Law enforcement not invited by
school.
In
circumstances other than abuse and abandonment where law enforcement enters the
campus intending to interview a student without a search warrant, subpoena or
probable cause to arrest the child (and is not at the school at the request
of the school), the draft would specify the parent(s)/guardian must be
contacted and permitted to make the decision of how to deal with the law
enforcement request to interview.
Arizona Attorney General Opinion (AGO) I77-211 (R77-316) states, in
part, that if the law enforcement officer is simply seeking to interview a
student, s/he is generally subject to the district’s policy. This was further confirmed in the most
recent Arizona Attorney General Opinion (AGO) I04-003 (R04-003), with the
caveat that if the police officer is investigating a criminal act by the
parents and/or if notification to the parent may jeopardize public safety, a
school official should not notify the parent(s)/guardian if so directed by the
officer.
Law enforcement invited on
campus.
Safety of the student population and the individual student
is the basis upon which disciplinary authority is vested in the schools. School officials are permitted a broad range
of authority to interview, interrogate and discipline students regarding school
related matters and to protect and control the student population within the
school setting. The school administrator
requires only a reason to believe that something detrimental to the health,
safety or welfare of a student or employee exists in order to question or
search a student.
The
subject of School Resource Officer (SRO) interviews and actions requires a
somewhat different analysis. The SRO
is on a school campus to which that official is usually assigned by agreement
with a law enforcement agency. In
general, the SRO falls under the category of an invited police officer because
the school has requested the presence of the officer due to concern for the
continuous safety of students. The SRO
is normally a certificated officer on specific assignment to the school and as
such must, in interviews and searches, respond based on law enforcement requirements
respecting probable cause and custodial interviews respectively. This would be in contrast to the educational
administrator's authority that requires only a reason to believe that something
detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of a student or employee exists in
order to question or search a student.
Law
enforcement personnel may be on the campus or called to the campus by school
authorities due to concerns for safety of the student population. The safety and protection of other students
in the custodial environment (due to
compulsory attendance, required presence, and in loco parentis) provide
the authority for the school to permit investigatory interviews without
contacting the parent. Law enforcement
would also be called due to the requirements of statute for reporting criminal
activity, weapons, drugs and other serious incidents. Where public safety or the safety of other students is in
question, there would be no requirement to notify parents of the interview.
Searches
Changes
in policy are intended to be clearer, more explicit statements of the current
state of law – providing authority for the District’s administrative regulation
on the issue.
Arrest
Should
a police officer express the intent to take a student into custody, the school
personnel should cooperate with the officer(s) to locate the student and
provide immediate access. A police
officer may take a juvenile into temporary custody for incorrigibility, a
felony, a breach of peace, or as a run away in accord with A.R.S. 8-303. Additionally, should the officer have a
warrant or a subpoena, the officer should be provided immediate access to the
student upon proper identification. It
is appropriate to ascertain the identity and authority of the officer,
requesting a signature on the "arresting officer" form as necessary. If the officer refuses the school request,
the school should call the supervisor of the officer to determine the authority
of the officer and call the parents.
School officials should not interfere with an officer in the performance
of a duty.
If
necessary, however, school officials may respond to parental inquiries about an
arrest, warrant or subpoena and explain the relinquishment of custody, unless
doing so would jeopardize public safety.
Jeopardizing the public safety in this instance may mean that a
suspected felon is forewarned as in the instance of a child abuser or another
who might flee the jurisdiction to avoid prosecution and who might place others
at risk.
Dr. Balentine invited Mr. Jaeger to highlight the proposed
revisions, to include recommendations made at the June 22, 2004 meeting. Distinction has been made when law
enforcements officers have access to Amphi students regarding: child abuse
matters; at the invitation of the school regarding an issue; or when officers
are present for their own purposes – but not regarding child abuse issues. The policy verbiage has been drafted to
separate each of these three categories of police involvement and student
access by law enforcement officers. When the situation involves child abuse,
abandonment, or neglect then Child Protective Services (CPS) and law
enforcement officers have an absolute right of access without intervention by
school administration.
The
result of the attorney general’s opinion was an extension to the long-standing
rule that officers are subject to the rules followed by school districts when
they are on campus at the invitation of school administration. Law enforcement has been advised that they
are now responsible for including the parent in the interview process when the
parent has requested so; the District will facilitate this.
When an
officer is present to investigate an off-campus crime they will be prevented
from interviewing students at the school; the District believes that this
should occur in the family home because the situation does not bare any
relationship to the school.
Clarification is made through the addition of a provision that expressly
states the right of school administration (parents of the moment) to have
access to students regarding safety issues pertaining to the school. Finally, when probable cause is present for
the arrest of a student, law enforcement has the express right to immediate
student contact; the District or parent may not interfere.
Dr.
Barrabee expressed concern about the six-hour delay in contacting parents
during an investigation and how school administration is involved. Mr. Jaeger stated that it is a rare
occurrence when it is necessary for the District to contact parents; contact is
usually initiated by CPS or law enforcement.
However, guidance is available to principals in this type of situation. Mr. Prout expressed concern about the
time-span of six hours; Mr. Jaeger responded that this is statutory in nature. There was discussion and speculation
regarding how the length of time (6 hours) evolved; board members expressed
interest in this determination. Mr.
Jaeger will research the basis for the six hour requirement and provide the
information to board members.
Dr.
Barrabee asked for clarity on Circle Pages 1 and 2. He requested a change in the sub-title on page 1 to read, “No
issue of student population health, welfare, or safety is presented.” And on page 2, the sub-title to read, “health, welfare,
or safety of the student population is of concern. And on line three of this
paragraph, the addition of the words, “health, welfare:” to precede
”safety.”
Dr.
Barrabee asked for clarification regarding disrobing as referenced on Circle
Page 3. He inquired if asking a student
to remove socks and shoes is considered a form of disrobing. Mr. Jaeger responded saying that most legal
advisements recommend against any public schools doing any disrobing of a
student, to include removing socks and shoes.
This is considered a highly-intrusive form of search, as recognized by
the courts. Typically, when disrobing
becomes necessary, it is an occurrence when police are involved. Schools are encouraged to consult with Mr.
Jaeger for specific situations, such as one involving a weapon.
Mr.
Prout inquired about the use of a search device, such as a wand-type unit. Mr. Jaeger provided clarification, stating
that this is not considered a less-intrusive search than a pat-down and
requires the same criteria for justification.
Some discussion occurred regarding the use of other means such as, metal
detectors and dog searches, etc.
Ms.
Young Wright expressed concern about the use of the word “disrobing.” Following some discussion, it was agreed to
replace this verbiage with “the removal of a student’s clothing.” Mr. Jaeger added that any search is by
definition “intrusive” – it is whether that intrusion is justified under the
law which is the unreasonable search that is prohibited under the
Constitution.
Dr.
Barrabee made a motion to approve the
policy with the verbiage changes identified, Mrs. Clymer seconded the
motion. Mr. Prout inquired about the strictness of the interpretat ion of the fourth amendment rights. Mr. Jaeger agreed that they are
express, but stated that the laws are still evolving. The motion passed, 5-0.
There were no requests for future agenda items.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No audience members addressed the Board.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Mrs. Clymer, seconded by Mr. Prout and passed unanimously, that the meeting be adjourned. The time was 8:30 p.m.