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, June 22, 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
Constance Cigliana, Chief Financial Officer
Ms. Young Wright called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
Dr. Balentine led the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments.
1. Announcement of Date and Place of Next Regular Governing Board Meeting
Ms. Young Wright announced the next regular meeting of
the Governing Board: July 6, 2004, 7:00
p.m., at Wetmore Center, 701 West Wetmore.
CONSENT AGENDA
A motion was made by Mrs. Clymer to approve consent agenda items A – K. The motion was seconded by Mr. Grant 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 June 8, 2004 Governing Board meeting were approved.
B. Appointment of Personnel
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. Leave(s) of Absence
Leave of absence requests were approved for certified and classified personnel, as listed in Exhibit 3.
E. Separation(s) and Termination(s)
Certified and classified personnel separations were approved, as listed in Exhibit 4.
F. Approval of Vouchers Totaling and Not
Exceeding Approximately $751,000.00 (Revised Total)
The following vouchers were approved as presented and payment authorized:
Vo. 629 $ 245,378.41
Vo. 630 184,860.78
Vo. 631 13,580.59
Vo. 632 16,812.98
Vo. 633 289,923.38
G. Acceptance of Gifts
Donations were accepted by the Governing Board, as listed in Exhibit 5.
H.
Extension of
District Bid Awards for an Additional One-Year Period, (July 1, 2004 – June 30,
2005)
The Governing Board approved the extension of District Bid Awards for
an additional one-year period (July 1, 2004 – June 30, 2005), as submitted and
listed in Exhibit 6.
I.
Approval of
Out-of-State Travel
Board Book Information: Out-of-state travel was approved for students (source of funding indicated): Gail Toal from Ironwood Ridge High School to take nine IRHS students to the Yearbook Tech Camp at San Diego State University in San Diego, California, July 30 – August 4, 2004 (club funds); Dennis Williams and six teacher chaperones from Cross Middle School, to take approximately 85 seventh and eighth grade students to Catalina Island in Orange County, California, April 6 – 8, 2005 (tax credit donations and parent contributions).
Out-of-state travel was approved for staff (source of funding indicated): David Rogers from Amphitheater High School to attend the AP Music Theory Workshop in Boston, Massachusetts, June 27 – July 1, 2004 (Amphitheater High School;) Vicki Balentine and Patrick Nelson to attend a seminar in Mystic, Connecticut, July 13-17, 2004, “Leading Change in Today’s Schools” sponsored by the Superintendency Institute of America (District funds); Richard Browning from Canyon del Oro High School to attend the AP World History Workshop/Institute in Rockville, Maryland, June 27-July 2, 2004 (Canyon del Oro High School); Matt Weber from the Technology Department to attend the FBI – Infrared National Conference in Washington, D.C., June 28 - July 1, 2004 (FBI).
J. Approval of Textbooks for Display
In accordance with Section 15-721 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, the Governing Board approved officially placing the textbooks referenced below on display for a period of 60 days prior to official adoption.
Skills for Personal and
Family Living
K. Ratification of
Superintendent’s Execution of Agreement with NWC River & La Cholla, LLC
Regarding Voluntary School Impact Donation Pursuant to Governing Board Policy
KLJA
Board Book Information: Governing
Board policy KLJA permits the District to solicit and encourage real estate
developers to contribute voluntary “educational donations” to the district to
offset the impact on the District’s schools of their proposed developments.
Especially in the growing northern part of the District’s boundaries, increased
enrollment resulting from developments may result in over-enrollment, exceeding
schools’ physical capacity.
Presently, the State School Facilities Board (SFB) does not provide
funding for school construction in growing neighborhoods if physical enrollment
capacity exists elsewhere in a school district. Instead, the SFB requires districts to bus children where
capacity exists or to redraw school boundaries to adjust enrollment patterns,
both of which substantially interfere with the neighborhood school philosophy
our District and community have long embraced.
In a proactive effort to avoid overcrowding and negative impact on the
District’s students, the district has entered into negotiations with real
estate developers pursuant to Policy KLJA. In each case, the District has sought an educational donation of
$1,200.00 per home, due at the close of escrow of each home, or the donation of
land to be used for school construction.
The District concluded favorable negotiations with NWC River and La Cholla
Inc. related to development of 21.46 acres on which 128 residential units will
be built north of River Road near La Cholla Boulevard. The Project will impact the enrollment at
Walker Elementary School, La Cima Middle School, and Amphitheater High School. The result of this negotiation was the
developer’s commitment to pay the District $1,200 per residence built on a
platted lot in its proposed development.
An agreement has been executed by Dr. Balentine and the developer. It is attached for the Board’s
ratification.
The Governing Board approved the ratification of the Superintendent’s execution of agreement with NWC River and La Cholla, LLC regarding voluntary school impact donation, as submitted and shown as Exhibit 7.
Ms.
Young Wright announced that the order of the Study/Action portion of the agenda
would be changed so that Item 6 will be addressed in place of Item 10 and Item
10 will be addressed in place of Item 6.
2. Study of Student Nutrition Issues Including Snack Foods
Board Book Information:
A study published in this week’s
Journal of the American Medical Association concludes that, given the current
status of children’s eating habits, parents should be talking to their children
about the foods they eat in much the same way they would discuss the dangers of
smoking.
The study, perhaps not
surprisingly, indicates that children do not compensate for poor food choices
by making more nutritional choices at other times. Those who select “bad foods”
will generally continue to do so.
During the school year, this can be a significant contributing factor to
obesity because parents are not present to guide their children in their
selection of foods. The study therefore
suggests that the access of students at school to the broadly defined class of
fast foods be limited.
Food service programs
(breakfasts & lunches) offered by school districts must meet federal
mandates for nutritional content under the National School Lunch Act, which was
signed into law by President Truman in 1946.
Those requirements, with some modifications over the years, remain in
place today. The “Type A” lunch
mandated in 1946, for example, is essentially still in place: five food items from four food groups – a
serving of meat or meat alternative, a bread or bread alternative, two
different fruits or vegetables, and fluid milk. The age of these federal requirements, combined with the
increasing rate of obesity has led many to question the nutritional content of
school food service programs.
Our District
food service program constantly strives to offer healthy choices to students
through its meal programs to control against the bad choices children may
make. Often, however, the unhealthy
choices made by students are not tied to school meals but to other available
foods in our schools through such means as vending machines, fund-raisers, and
snack bars.
This item is presented to allow discussion and study of these timely
issues. Staff may present additional
information at the time of the Board’s discussion to facilitate discussion.
Ms. Karen Martin, Manager of Food Services, was introduced to provide an overview of the food service program including offerings at school snack bars. The District’s food service offerings will be changing with the 2004-2005 school year.
The District is scheduled to make changes in offerings at all school levels in this next school year, including introducing new, healthier foods.
Ms. Martin responded to board member questions. Soda/vending machines at the schools do not fall under Food Services; in general, they fall under the purview of student activity programs. Dr. Balentine added that water is the primary product sold. Vending machines are not available to elementary students. Additionally, vending machines have been modified so that they are not operational during lunchtimes.
Ms. Martin stated that although federal standards have been in place since 1946, revisions have occurred to reflect health-related concerns and updates (i.e. currently, sodium levels are being reviewed). The District participates in a ‘New Menus’ program from the state department that operates as an Offer versus Serve option allowing students the choice of ordering an entree and as many sides as they elect. Additionally, to encourage the selection of more healthful foods by students, effort is given to making the foods appealing and attractive visually. Student satisfaction and evaluations are solicited. The length of lunchtimes has been addressed in order to ensure that students have enough time to eat. Free and reduced meal offerings may be available through snack bars. The District has been successful with some outside vendor-offerings in response to bids for items such as pizza and sandwiches.
3. Study and Approval of Proposed Fiscal Year
2004-2005 Expenditure Budget for Publication
Board Book information:
Governing Boards are required to adopt an operating budget prior to July
15 of each year. Prior to adoption, the
Governing Board must first propose a budget, publish a summary of the proposed
budget, and make a complete proposed budget available for public review. Additionally, the Governing Board must
conduct a public hearing on the budget immediately prior to adoption.
The recommended budget proposal is contained in the Governing
Board members’ materials. This budget capacity may change during fiscal year
2004-2005 as a result of possible growth, and this budget will therefore be
revised following the 100th day of school and prior to May 15, 2005.
For the 2004-2005 fiscal year, the District’s revenue control
limit is $80,714,449. As was the case in the fiscal year
2003-2004, this is augmented by $4,025,000. for Desegregation and $129,412. for
Dropout Prevention. Because the cost of
utilities continues to escalate, the budget includes $952,095. for excess
utilities to cover the increase in costs related to the impact of energy sector
inflation on the District’s utility expenditure.
Tuition revenue is projected to be $1,043,000. The soft capital allocation is $4,885,803. The M & O budget capacity includes
$3,724,565. from the Capital Outlay Revenue Limit, the remainder of which has
been allocated to the unrestricted capital budget limit at $499,000. The Classroom Site Funds (Proposition 301)
revenue for fiscal year 2004-2005 is budgeted at $4,737,914.
It is the recommendation of the Administration that the
Governing Board approve this proposed budget and direct that a summary of the
budget be published. It is also
recommended that the Governing Board schedule a public hearing on the proposed
budget immediately prior to the adoption at the scheduled Board Meeting on July
6, 2004.
Dr. Balentine reviewed the proposed budget
figures provided (totaling $86,069,374) and expects that the amounts may be
subject to revision at some future time.
This proposal reflects initial amounts that will be published prior to
the public hearing with a request for formal adoption at the July 6th
Board Meeting.
In response to an inquiry about a reduced
federal projects budget amount, Dr. Balentine stated that this is due to a
federal grant that is completing its cycle with the 2003-2004 school year.
Mr. Prout moved to approve the proposed
Expenditure Budget for 2004-2005 and that a summary of the budget be published,
as submitted (shown as Exhibit 8, pp. 1-16). The motion passed unanimously,
5-0.
4. Approval of Proposed Revisions to Governing
Board Policies JKD and JKE Regarding Student Discipline
Board Book Information: This item was previously studied by the Board
at its June 8, 2004 meeting.
The Governing Board
policies, regulations and exhibits regarding student discipline are
extensive. They require, in part, that
a student alleged to have violated the Code of Conduct is required to “remain
in school until applicable due process procedures are instituted. In no instance shall students be released
early from school unless parents have been notified.” In practice, this due process takes the form of parental contact
via telephone or in person. In
addition, the student is presented with a “Notice of Disciplinary Action” form
(frequently referred to as the 9038) which sets out the specific violations the
student is alleged to have committed and the discipline assigned. If a long-term suspension referral is
pending, it is specifically noted on the 9038.
As parental contact is
required upon the assignation of discipline, and notice is given to the
student’s parent/guardian that additional discipline may be pending, the
Administration recommends that the following policy changes be considered by
the Board. Administration believes that
these proposed revisions will not compromise the due process rights of the
student.
Hearing
Notification pursuant to JKD
Governing Policy JKD
provides guidelines for student discipline and long-term suspension
procedures. As set forth in this
policy, the subsection entitled “Regular Education Students: Suspension for over ten days” states (in
relevant part):
“Step 4: A formal letter to the
responsible parent or guardian will be mailed by certified mail with return
receipt requested or delivered by hand (with an adult witness present) at least
three (3) working days prior to the formal hearing….”
In practice and in
addition to the certified mail requirements set forth above, the hearing
scheduler also makes a ‘courtesy call’ to the parent/guardian of the student in
an attempt to confirm the parent’s knowledge of the hearing date and time.
Administration notes
that many parents do not access certified mail in a timely manner or, they
simply refuse to accept any certified mail.
Further, staff processed approximately 300 long-term suspension and/or
expulsion hearings during the 2003-2004 school year. At an average certified mail cost of $4.88, the district is
spending more than $1,464.00 per year on postage for these notices alone. Parents, likewise, are not always personally
available to accept hand-deliveries. As
a consequence, the Administration recommends that the certified mail
requirements of this section be deleted and this subsection be revised as follows:
“Step 4: A formal letter to the
responsible parent or guardian will be mailed by certified mail with return
receipt requested or delivered by hand (with an adult witness present) at
least three (3) working days prior to the formal hearing….”
Hearing Notice pursuant to JKE
Governing Policy JKE
provides guidelines for student expulsion procedures. In the subsection entitled “Regular Education Students”, this
policy states (in relevant part):
“Step 5: A formal letter to the
responsible parent or guardian will be mailed by certified mail with return
receipt requested or delivered by hand (with an adult witness present) at least
five (5) working days prior to the formal hearing….”
Administration notes that A.R.S. §15-843(F) (3) requires
the five-day written notice to the parents of pending expulsion
proceedings. Notification via certified
mail or hand-delivery is not a statutory requirement.
Therefore, Administration recommends that the certified
mail clause be deleted from this passage for the same reasoning as noted
above. JKE would then state (in part):
“Step 5: A formal letter to the
responsible parent or guardian will be mailed by certified mail with return
receipt requested or delivered by hand (with an adult witness present) at
least five (5) working days prior to the formal hearing….”
Statutory
Information
Governing Board policy JKE requires that the formal
notification letter include “Copies of this policy and A.R.S. 15-840
and 15-843
unless previously provided in connection with the same infraction.”
Administration recommends deletion of this portion of the
notification requirements. Copies of
policy and statutory information are available upon request to any student,
parent/guardian or interested party.
Requiring the addition of this information in every notice letter is an
unwarranted additional postage and clerical expense.
Governing Board policy JKE (in part) requires that the
report of a long-term suspension hearing which results in an expulsion
recommendation be sent via:
“… A formal letter to the responsible parent
or guardian will be mailed by certified mail with return receipt requested or
delivered by hand (with an adult witness present) indicating the recommendation
that will be made to the Board.”
Again, this mail/delivery procedure is not required by
statute, is an unnecessary cost, and is burdensome to staff. Administration recommends deletion of this
clause. The phrase will then state:
“… A formal letter to the responsible parent
or guardian will be mailed by certified mail with return receipt requested
or delivered by hand (with an adult witness present) indicating the
recommendation that will be made to the Board.”
Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQs”)
Finally, the Administration recognizes that the student
discipline process can be very confusing and frustrating for students and
parents. As a consequence, staff are
preparing a pamphlet to answer those questions frequently asked by parents of
students for whom a long-term suspension hearing has been requested. This pamphlet is not intended to be
distributed to each and every district student as the Student’s Rights and
Responsibilities Handbook is disseminated.
This “FAQ” pamphlet will only be given to those parents of students who
have been suspended and are facing further disciplinary consideration,
including the possibility of expulsion.
Dr. Balentine stated
that this item was studied at the previous meeting. She added that the focus for changes presented will allow
improved communication through delivery of first class mail versus certified
delivery – which requires mail pick up at the post office and tends to delay
delivery. Approval is requested.
Mr. Prout moved to approve the proposed
revisions to Governing Board Policies JKD and JKE Regarding Student Discipline
as stated above. Mrs. Clymer seconded
the motion. Ms. Young Wright requested
that the referenced FAQ information be made available on the Amphi
website.
Ms. Young Wright called the question; the
motion passed 5-0.
5. Approval of Resolution to Arizona
Department of Education Requesting More Timely Access to AIMS Results
Board Book
Information: Under the Arizona LEARNS
program, the stakes for students, parents and schools are high, related to the
results of a student’s performance on the AIMS test. Ultimately, the result will determine whether a student may
receive a high school diploma.
In its ongoing efforts
to help students and their families achieve success on the AIMS, the District
has implemented remediation programs to assist students who have not yet met
state standards tested under the AIMS.
This summer, a significant aspect of the remediation efforts is the
operation of the District’s free summer school program – the first of its kind
in decades.
Students who may
benefit from the summer school program must be identified as soon as possible,
given that there are limited opportunities for them to take the AIMS test. With the current timing of the release of AIMS
results, however, many students will lose the earliest possible opportunities
to take advantage of the summer school program. With the ADE releasing AIMS results to Districts in August, the
opportunity for summer school enrichment and remediation can be all but lost,
particularly in the case of 11th grade students who will not have
not have another summer school opportunity before taking what is intended to be
their last and highest stakes AIMS test in 12th grade.
It is appropriate to
urge the ADE to modify the timing of releasing AIMS results to ensure students
are given every possible assistance.
Mr. Jaeger was invited
to read the Resolution into the record.
Responding to an inquiry about when AIMS’ testing occurs, Dr. Balentine
stated that Language Arts and Math testing occur at different times during the
year.
Discussion ensued with
Board members expressing positive feedback to the Resolution’s verbiage. It was noted that an intervention program is
in place and available to District students.
Mr. Prout stated that
the intended recipient of this document is the Arizona State Department of
Education and that this subject be given the highest level of visibility. He suggested that it be shared with other
bodies, such as Legislators and other school district representatives. Ms. Young Wright requested that copies of
the Resolution also be sent to the Governor and Arizona State Department of
Education Board members.
The Governing Board
voted unanimously, 5-0, to approve the Resolution requesting more timely access
to AIMS results, as submitted (Exhibit 9).
Ms.
Young Wright again stated that the agenda order is changed.
10. Discussion of Termination of Pima County
Parks and Recreation After School and Summer Programs
Board Book information:
After several decades of offering
free or very low cost recreation programs after school and during the summer at
schools within Pima County’s jurisdiction, Pima County has advised that it must
cancel operation of these programs. The
County has been advised by the Arizona Department of Heath Services that the
County’s long-existing programs are subject to state daycare licensure
standards. Continued operation of the
programs under the state’s standards would be much more costly to the County.
The County has offered
to remit funding for these programs, at current levels for the next fiscal
year, to school districts. The
licensure requirements, which led to the County's termination of its program,
would also be applicable to any program operated by any other party.
The District has asked
that the County supply funding to Community Extension Programs, Inc. (CEP),
which already has a state license and which currently operates daycare programs
in the District. CEP has applied for
funding which would enable operation of a half-day summer program. To date, the County has not offered funding
to CEP as requested by CEP, but instead has offered more limited funding to the
District, which is unable to operate a program directly.
The Associate to
the Superintendent has recently met with County officials to further explore
potential resolutions regarding this issue.
He will provide more detailed information to the Board at the upcoming
meeting.
Dr. Balentine
stated that Pima County Parks and Recreation are removing themselves from
offering recreational programs because of the recent changes in licensure
requirements. She invited Mr. Jaeger to
provide a summary and status update.
Mr. Jaeger provided a chronological overview of events regarding the
termination of these County daycare programs that have been in place at
District schools. In March, the
District was offered the opportunity to bid on the receipt of County funds to
assume the offering of these programs.
Since the District would need to adhere to those same daycare licensure
requirements, the District recommended that the County offer those same
opportunities to the Community Extension Programs (CEP). The County did not award to CEP for this
summer and therefore the summer programs are not available this summer.
Negotiations
have resulted so that CEP may issue a proposal to the County for funding to
support an after-school program in the fall on behalf of the District. (This is
applicable to unincorporated sites within Pima County; Coronado K-8, Walker,
Harelson, and Mesa Verde schools.)
Mr. Jaeger responded to questions and discussion ensued. The District cannot utilize M & O monies
to support this type of program and a program could only be operated through
community schools statutes – requiring that funds be kept separate and apart
from M & O funds. A recent change
in legislation does now allow excess revenues from community schools (once all
invoices and encumbrances have been paid) to be utilized in M & O.
Mr. Jaeger added that the funding being offered is just for the next fiscal year. The subsidy from the County could at some time in the future be eliminated; possibly after one year. Concern was expressed on behalf of the families depending on these services and their needs. On-going pursuit to a resolution of this issue will continue and Mr. Jaeger was asked to continue providing updates.
7)
Approval of Revisions to Governing Board Policy JLCB and
Policy Regulation JLCB-R Regarding Immunizations Of Students
Board Book Information:
A review of Governing Board
policies by legal counsel suggests the need for revisions to bring specific
Governing Board policies into compliance with revisions to A.R.S. §15-872.
Policy JLCB no longer
requires a District to provide a due process hearing pursuant to A.R.S. §15-843
for a student who has been suspended because they could not provide proof of
immunization. By statute (A.R.S. §15-872)
students who attend school and who do not comply with the immunization schedule
are required to be suspended from school attendance until they can show
documentary proof of immunization.
Immunization of students is a health and safety issue rather than a
discipline issue. A student who does
not have proof of immunization shall not be allowed to attend school until such
proof has been provided.
Policy Regulation
JLCB-R has been revised to reflect revisions to Policy JLCB. It was also revised to reference the
citation to the Department of Health Services regulation rather than the
specific language found within the regulation.
Although A.R.S §15-874
specifies November 30th as the date for submitting the report to the
state or local health department, that date has been revised to November 15 to
comply with Department of Health Services rule R9-6-707.
Dr. Balentine stated that this item was
previously studied by the Board at its June 8, 2004 meeting. As a follow up, a letter is being prepared
to be sent to the Department of Health Services related to concerns
previously expressed by Mr. Prout regarding the polio vaccine. Administration is requesting a vote for
approval to revisions to Policy JLCB and Regulation JLCB-R, as presented.
Mr. Prout expressed
a concern about the allowance of waivers used by parents. Mr. Jaeger added that this policy is
statute-driven and allows no discretion in variance. He also noted that very few parents claim exemptions.
Mr. Prout moved to accept the revisions to Governing Board Policy JLCB and Regulation JLCB-R, as
presented; Mr. Grant seconded the motion.
During discussion, Dr. Barrabee asked about suspension policies as
related to this issue. Mr. Jaeger
explained that typical suspension policies are disciplinary in nature and do
not apply in this setting. The statute
creates an obligation to just proforma suspend the student until they meet
immunization criteria – there is no due process requirement. Ms. Young Wright added that some parents
feel that vaccinations may cause other physical problems.
Ms. Young Wright
called the vote; it passed unanimously, 5-0.
8)
Study and
Approval of Draft Policy Exhibit Regarding Chaperone Travel Expenses
Board Book information:
This specific item was first
studied by the Board at its May 11, 2004 meeting, and again at its June 8, 2004
meeting. Travel issues, in a broader
sense, however, have been discussed on several other occasions as well.
Since the last
discussion of June 8, Board members have had an opportunity to review the
current travel policies currently in place.
The attached exhibit (Exhibit JJH-E) will correspond to existing policy
language and the Board’s emphasis on making extracurricular activities as
affordable and inclusive as possible.
Dr. Balentine read the draft Exhibit, which includes revised verbiage as a result of Board Member input at previous meetings.
Additional feedback was offered by Board Members. Dr. Barrabee offered a change in verbiage regarding the provision for safety.
Ms. Young Wright added, that if necessary, this item could be allowed more time for further consideration.
Mr. Prout offered that the purpose of this addendum is to address the conflict of interest issue and the unfairness to students with lesser family (financial) means. Further discussion ensued.
Resultant from discussion, the following verbiage changes were made, and agreed to by Board Members:
·
The
first bullet: the elimination of the first sentence “The importance of safe
supervision must be balanced against the need for extracurricular activities
that are not exclusive.”
·
Paragraph
two: “ . . . be limited and . .
.”
·
Bullet
three: final verbiage agreed up: “Chaperones who travel with their expenses to
be paid in whole or part by students may not solicit or encourage students to
participate in the travel. This may
represent an inherent conflict of interest subject to employment rules and
Arizona revised statutes.”
·
Paragraph
three: following discussion, agreement was reached to retain the proposed
sentence, as shown.
Dr. Balentine stated that the travel request form has been revised to include a space that defines student/percentage attendance. Some issues requiring judgment are situational. Language must be preserved to allow appropriate interpretation.
Mr. Prout moved to accept Draft Policy Exhibit JJH-E Regarding Chaperone Travel Expenses, as
amended (shown above). Mrs. Clymer
seconded the motion. The motion passed, 4-1. Dr. Barrabee voted nay.
Ms. Young Wright
added that if it appears that
the affects of this Exhibit become problematic, it may be readdressed at some
time in the future.
9)
Discussion and
Direction to Governing Board Delegates to Arizona School Board Association
Delegate Assembly Conference Concerning ASBA Legislative Activity and Positions
Board Book information:
This item will allow for Board
member discussion of legislative issues and will also allow for an opportunity
for the Board to provide direction to the Delegate on positions to take at the
ASBA Delegate Assembly Conference to be held on June 26, 2004. .
Mr. Prout moved to
entrust authority for decision-making/voting to Mrs. Clymer, serving as the
Board’s Delegate at the Assembly. The
motion was seconded by Dr. Barrabee.
Mrs. Clymer
requested Board member input regarding the Tombstone Unified item, which
advocates for legislative changes to ARS §15-301(A). This statute states that, “A person is
eligible for election as county school superintendent if the person holds a
basic or standard certificate to teach in the schools of this state.”
Following
discussion, the motion passed 5-0.
6. Study of Proposed Revisions to Governing
Board Policy JIH Regarding Student Interrogations, Searches, and Arrests
Board Book Information:
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.
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 schools 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.
This item is presented for the Board’s study only at this time.
Dr. Balentine stated that there has been a
recent Attorney General’s opinion regarding student interrogations, searches,
and arrests. Mr. Jaeger will review the
proposed changes in policy that the District is suggesting as a result of this
opinion. She invited board members to
contact her directly with any suggestions or concerns. This item will return in August for Board
approval.
Mr. Jaeger provided an overview of the
suggested changes. He noted that unless
a law enforcement officer is on school grounds to arrest a student based upon
probable cause or warrant, the officer is subject to school policies and rules
in terms of having student access. This
revision also is intended to refine the verbiage (interview versus
interrogate). Another misconception
being clarified herein relates to school officials having the authority to
interview and discipline a student regarding school-related incidents and the
right to search and seize property (student lockers, etc.).
Mr. Prout asked about the non-custodial
parent notification involving a child that is being detained at school because
the child is being removed from the custodial parent. Mr. Jaeger responded saying that the law/CPS operates in the
favor of the safety of the child or related children to the possible detriment of
the adult/parent.
Mr. Prout inquired about law enforcement
access to students regarding a crime-in-process issue. Mr. Jaeger responded that in the event of
public safety, law enforcement has access to students for interview. Some discussion ensued regarding this
issue. Mr. Jaeger noted that regarding
non-school related issues, it is preferred to have students interviewed in the
home where parents are present and available for emotional support. In response to questions regarding the
appropriate interpretation of policy and regulations regarding these types of
circumstances, Mr. Jaeger confirmed that training is provided to site
administration and staff. He, too, is
available to staff for questions.
Generally, law enforcement are well-versed in these procedures. Written
records are not mandated, however, some written record is necessary when
students are taken into custody and removed from school premises. Locks used on lockers are school-issue and
most school site policies prohibit students from using personal locks.
Dr. Balentine asked Mr. Nelson to respond to
an inquiry from Ms. Young Wright regarding a brochure she recently received
from Tom Horne’s office. He said that
districts are to receive enough brochures for all students. Amphi has not yet received enough brochures
for all students. Once the full
allotment has been received, they will be forwarded to the sites to be
disseminated to all student homes (including bilingual translation). Ms. Young Wright believes this is
informative in terms of student rights and requirements.
In
response to Mr. Grant inquiry, Mr. Jaeger confirmed that the term “interview”
will replace the usage of “interrogations” throughout the revised
document.
There were no
requests for future agenda items.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Mr. Prout, seconded by Mr. Grant and passed unanimously, that the meeting be adjourned. The time was 9:00 p.m.
_________________________________
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret Harris
_________________________________ __________
Ms. Nancy Young Wright,
President Date