Administration has discretion in cases of serious violations
The Greene County board of education, after listening to an hour long financial presentation by a Piper Jaffray investment banker, spent 15 minutes on discussion before approving the first reading of a revised activity eligibility/good conduct policy.
About 50 students and parents attended the meeting. None of them spoke during the open forum and no public comments were taken during the board’s discussion of the policy revisions.
The board approved three changes, although the policy was slightly changed from what had been posted in the board packet earlier in the week.
A sentence in the earlier revision referred to student conduct that would make him or her “unworthy to represent the ideals, principles or standards” of the school district. That sentence was taken out at the advice of the school’s attorney.
It was replaced by a sentence at a different place in the policy that gives the superintendent of schools or a designated person, most likely the activities director, the right “to institute a more substantial penalty depending on the severity of the underlying violation.” Superintendent Tim Christensen used as an example that under the current policy, a student who was accused of shoplifting would face the same penalties as a student accused of armed robbery. The revision gives discretion in addressing serious violations.
The policy still allows a student who has violated the good conduct policy to start an activity that is already in progress. The change to the policy specifies that a student will not be able to serve his penalty during an activity he or she joined late. Superintendent Tim Christensen clarified at the meeting that a late-joining student who was facing sanctions for violating the policy could practice with a team but would not be able to compete for the duration of the season because of the unserved ineligibility. He would serve the ineligibility by sitting out competitions (one-fourth of the schedule for a first violation, one-half for a second violation) in the next complete season in which he participated.
The sanctions in the good conduct policy go into effect with an accusation or admission of a violation, regardless of whether the student is cited, arrested, adjudicated or convicted. A third change in the policy leaves it to the discretion of the superintendent or his designee to extend the period of ineligibility if the student is found guilty of a serious criminal offense for a felony offense.
Board member David Ohrt said that he looks at whether the policy is meant to judge or punish a students, or to teach students to think and learn. “I think this meets that in terms of working with kids to help them learn to make good decisions,” Ohrt said.
“When we talk about this at meetings and present it to kids we’re talking about it from the standpoint of doing positive things, but unfortunately, when the policy is invoked, it’s about punishment,” Christensen said.
Board member Mark Peters added that since the policy requires students to complete community service and counseling, the penalty starts a learning process.
“Every time these issues come up, it’s agonizing,” Ohrt said. “It’s agonizing for all of us.”
The board approved the first reading of the revised policy unanimously; board member Ashley Johnston was absent.
The activity eligibility/good conduct policy came under scrutiny when a high profile basketball player joined the football team after the season began and served a period of ineligibility that was the result of a charge against him of sexual assault-third degree, a Class D felony. The student was then eligible at the start of the basketball season.
