[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6274260,"mediaKeyId","2993720-33c778ee49a3326a7193ae9609c57d78","parentId",2993720,"title","Policy committee discusses draft AI policy; task force recommendations and legal review requested","audioSeconds",695,"startMs",2169000,"endMs",2864000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2993720-33c778ee49a3326a7193ae9609c57d78&start=2169&end=2864","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2993720-33c778ee49a3326a7193ae9609c57d78/thumbnail_2169000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6274260/Pennsylvania/Policy-committee-discusses-draft-AI-policy-task-force-recommendations-and-legal-review-requested","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6274260-1e1683f0dde85a7a3a5de212f984e413/orig.mp4?Expires=1775087585&Signature=QfFqdAB9zYeplYg6I24Y6rAYgo~xHzI72IsMkdm3tAZCbmqynO5pq2PQJdb7pdH1xTdaAEOEmwkcypr4MlkL9oDDmO2H0Tu3Y3q3Q97fs5U6-yP1PjnSH7vHdzEcCDXfFNzo0mWHzPVhN5Shb1Clsaz5No6fJs46O4zw09ykFvRXNkhnePHxhcJCGjg~gwh-84S0iRtsGdXmI2g7uhabJIfFhvu~5KI6ahwWMxPfppXA3OSV1leeuVA86ObBPrXHMyjqgwXc8HsfWodhuBil25a7L4Nq17XFxbBKDQq~Kw~ONWwiU2w7uSVlbfTItyViQnVlWoCMtq8Qxi7P3cvgJw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Central York School District","date","2025-04-15T15:29:09.797Z","article","Committee members discussed a draft artificial intelligence (AI) policy and the work of a teacher‑led AI task force, but did not send the policy to the full board during this meeting. The committee asked legal counsel to review liability language and to help refine implementation provisions.

Dr. Aiken summarized the task force’s work: the district formed an AI task force to develop a vision and operating procedures and to craft a policy that balances ethical use, transparency and data security. The draft policy under review draws on external samples the committee examined and on a draft from a technology policy council; the committee said teachers and building leaders contributed sample language.

The policy’s stated purpose is to ensure “ethical and responsible use of AI technologies to enhance teaching, learning and administrative processes while safeguarding student privacy and data security.” The authority section explicitly references federal laws and standards such as FERPA, IDEA, ADA, CIPA and COPPA and a long list of board policies related to acceptable use, student records, non‑discrimination, and data security. Committee members suggested adding an explicit reference to the student handbook (school handbook) so student use is governed by handbook rules.

Several drafting questions arose. Members recommended that the formal definition of AI end where the technical description ends (at human intervention) and that operational disclaimers — for example, statements that the district does not guarantee accuracy of third‑party AI tools or that it is not responsible for loss of information — be moved to implementation or procedures sections. The committee discussed whether the district can disclaim responsibility for data lost or misappropriated when staff or students use third‑party AI tools, and whether the district creates additional liability by whitelisting or recommending particular tools.

Legal vetting was flagged as essential. Committee members said Saxton and Stump (legal counsel, as referenced in the meeting) should review liability disclaimers and confirm whether the district’s suggested language appropriately limits exposure when the district does not develop an AI tool but facilitates its use. Members discussed maintaining a vetted “white list” of approved tools and the need to protect student and financial data.

The committee did not approve the AI policy for first read at this meeting; members agreed to continue refining the draft, seek counsel guidance on liability and data‑handling language, and add implementation guidance in administrative procedures rather than embedding operational details in the policy itself.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board Policy Committee 4/14/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Central York SD policy committee reviewed a draft artificial intelligence policy, discussed a teacher‑led task force, definitions, legal vetting, and liability concerns for data loss; the committee did not forward the AI policy to the board and requested further counsel review and refinement.","taxTitle","Central York SD, School Districts, Pennsylvania","taxId",38371,"location","Pennsylvania","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6274265,"Committee clears sponsorship and gifts policy language for first read, tightens definitions",659,1458000,2117000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2993720-33c778ee49a3326a7193ae9609c57d78&start=1458&end=2117","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2993720-33c778ee49a3326a7193ae9609c57d78/thumbnail_1458000.jpg","/articles/6274265/Pennsylvania/Committee-clears-sponsorship-and-gifts-policy-language-for-first-read-tightens-definitions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6274265-6c3a0ddf4de30adb5881d57e81c6215b/orig.mp4?Expires=1775087585&Signature=Aw5jQLwWh~kFOWYKWotHi-RP6XDlZsyzW-5FmGRWXMZC2IvLN0xcEFc0bxdtHyXd9Ux~6vuDOjQCNHovNfc9wBSegrcVjsdAZYQykho2~JkLRog5z00FW1us5j031mv6keRmzhJeMR~9Am8LsxhLen4hxR-LLzsK~poCeuEaroOutUqX3lx3E2GnNj2otp~d8Bz~td4~tOlot6PCMYMs6YezxXou9u9c1CMU5VDdfK7O8ULw7qlXhd59r9BcZAOo5ap78iIlMR7sb9j0b8ND5rmwBVBeyulPY5snY4xzmRUQJ9MXvx6wh8RZcxjJo0DKVW0XnCIFrBHgDpeht~SutA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Central York SD policy committee voted to forward a revised sponsorships and gifts policy to the full school board for first reading after members refined definitions and clarified how gifts and sponsorships differ.

The committee replaced earlier phrasing that described sponsorships as “programs” with language defining a sponsorship agreement as a written contract by which a commercial group, business or company provides private financial support for district programs and activities in exchange for public recognition. The policy also includes an explicit definition of an in‑kind donation as a non‑cash contribution of goods, services or expertise. Committee members agreed to strike a standalone gifts line from this policy because gifts are governed by a separate policy.

The revised sponsorship section includes a list of permissible sponsor activities, reiterates that the district will not distribute student or staff information to sponsors for promotional purposes, and requires compliance with federal, state and local laws as well as board administrative rules. Committee members also kept a board‑approval threshold requiring approval for any gifts greater than $7,500.

Committee members resolved several drafting issues in the text (grammar, punctuation, singular/plural agreement) and asked legal counsel to confirm related language as needed. The committee chair called the question and the committee approved sending the policy to the full board for first read.

Key policy points include: a sponsorship agreement is a contract (not a program); in‑kind donations are non‑cash contributions; the district will not share student or staff information with sponsors for promotional use; and gifts above $7,500 require board approval. The committee intends to address any final counsel edits during the first‑read process.","The policy committee approved sending a revised sponsorships/gifts policy to the full board for first reading, clarifying the definition of a sponsorship agreement as a written contract, distinguishing in‑kind donations from gifts, and retaining a board approval requirement for non‑gift contributions above $7,500.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6274268,"Policy committee sends revised facilities-naming rule to full board for first read",1159,235000,1394000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2993720-33c778ee49a3326a7193ae9609c57d78&start=235&end=1394","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2993720-33c778ee49a3326a7193ae9609c57d78/thumbnail_235000.jpg","/articles/6274268/Pennsylvania/Policy-committee-sends-revised-facilities-naming-rule-to-full-board-for-first-read","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6274268-0b657fc8f848817195a8ec22c466bb2a/orig.mp4?Expires=1775087585&Signature=dfN9-ZWHSsaxYRWwWYcCqN5PzYz17mnFy-Z5S~~oL~WyV7avthGtM--BEC8ov0Ewvj3C9BZBOK9ygZI8pjBB41PolUoMIo9JkCf~TyL9pREeuL-pHshE-0UY~4pfZimP4bL~HL8nWJbsK-ip2sSCHV~BdvkacHFawaS9Dl6kXBZicfpZYF7Dz5ewOT2xTrcHP7fynX6XG0GTDXuDxM3UI3im4oK0hXMZs5NnUHEiyMOdqjsLonGZtyBHEtXFyeE7mBdKM51CVysUnCbjFmF3M2ZRP9K-rNmNzIthukg452Lp4xvp7zYRRiyT2VKjbHE1~s2Gq6gOG7Of8JfTpFL5kw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Central York SD policy committee voted to send its revised facilities-naming policy (701.1) to the full school board for first reading after committee members agreed to restore a revocation clause and keep a two‑thirds threshold for removing a name.

Committee members debated whether the draft should require the superintendent to provide a list of buildings and grounds eligible for naming and whether the policy should include explicit grounds for revoking a name. Committee leadership said the board will retain final authority on all namings.

The committee chair said the group had removed a clause that required the superintendent or designee to provide the board with “a list of buildings, facilities, etc., that are eligible” for sponsorships, and asked whether members still supported striking that clause. Dr. Aiken urged keeping parameters so administrators have guidance when scoping sponsorship opportunities, noting legal counsel had warned that the district could face discriminatory‑action claims if revocation criteria were entirely undefined.

After discussion the committee agreed to restore language allowing the district to revoke a facility name if “the individual or entity for whom the facility is named is determined to have engaged in misconduct which would serve to discredit their name or reputation,” and to add an explicit statement that a two‑thirds majority of the full board would be required to revoke a name. Members also discussed whether that revocation authority should apply to paid sponsorships and to honorary namings and asked legal counsel (Saxton and Stump, as referenced in the meeting) to clarify why a two‑thirds threshold was recommended.

Several members raised practical questions about revocation. One board member said sponsorships typically rest on defined contracts and can be handled through contract terms, while honorary namings are harder to reverse. Another member asked whether the district would need to return prepaid sponsorship fees if the board revoked a sponsored name before the end of a contracted term; the committee agreed that was a reasonable consideration but did not specify a remedy in policy.

The committee took the matter to first read with the understanding that counsel would be asked to explain the recommended voting threshold and that the final wording would be refined before a second reading.

The policy now distinguishes naming for honor and naming tied to sponsorship agreements, requires board approval for naming and revocation, and specifies a two‑thirds majority for revocation actions. The committee expects to bring counsel’s clarification back at first read or the subsequent meeting.

The committee chair closed the naming discussion and moved on to other agenda items.","The Central York SD policy committee approved sending an updated facilities-naming policy (701.1) to the full school board for first reading after debate over listing eligible facilities, revocation language and a two-thirds threshold for removing names.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Policy committee discusses draft AI policy; task force recommendations and legal review requested

Committee clears sponsorship and gifts policy language for first read, tightens definitions

Policy committee sends revised facilities-naming rule to full board for first read