[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",[32,75,87],{"_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":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6271134,"mediaKeyId","3029310-197175af062b276dd15a5008c4b2b0f2","parentId",3029310,"title","Whole‑board training reminds Savannah‑Chatham trustees: stay on the balcony — policy, not operations","audioSeconds",1300,"startMs",8760000,"endMs",10060000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3029310-197175af062b276dd15a5008c4b2b0f2&start=8760&end=10060","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3029310-197175af062b276dd15a5008c4b2b0f2/thumbnail_8760000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6271134/Georgia/Wholeboard-training-reminds-SavannahChatham-trustees-stay-on-the-balcony-policy-not-operations","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6271134-80f9c6e8a007748d77a0e3700c0409ba/orig.mp4?Expires=1773584045&Signature=AqxVw2w5px-bB-hfnABX~sPnG5q1kpcE7UENyvq33r8OQxX-Tc16Dk--UdTwEaS-6k~3DTO~5StzXpQ~FucNMb81FlTYR9czHhUIa8V9jyNDKVIqY00tCO-5Dj1OahMV7FChrKKNbxC~XsxbINZiJ-pbfKuapmKlZyRSpvwwDZObx8FtTR0j-pCdFUHOE3pIpOKmKmgeA4FcV1sEpB1OM29ZrAEmJZIsIsLujbz~nJ8EG73DyrnS8Y6Y3uaDnks~SpqMKnVETEKQOEqmfFy1JfevZROcOgj6HKB9s6bUPgz95MnzJAei2PgdCF7EcdzT3oAiaqoUoU7jx6OPP3O0ng__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-17T01:01:08.563Z","article","Parker Poe attorneys used the training to review board duties, ethics, and practices trustees should follow to preserve trust and avoid legal or accreditation risks.

Suzanne Wilcox and Nina Gupta told the board the central role of a school board is governance — setting policy, evaluating the superintendent, and stewarding resources — not day‑to‑day operations. “The balcony is where you do the big thinking,” the presenters said repeatedly, urging members to avoid directing staff, making personnel demands outside the established chain of command, or surprising colleagues and the superintendent with policy proposals at a meeting.

Trainers listed common “red flags”: unprepared board members; leaking executive‑session conversations; public bickering that erodes trust; individually negotiating with vendors or staff; and using social media or personal communications to undermine collective decisions. They recommended board members review their code of ethics and policy regularly, attend work sessions prepared, coordinate with the superintendent about agenda items, and limit oral arguments at appeal hearings to control time and legal exposure.

The presenters also discussed how boards can support staff while preserving governance distances: provide clear policy direction, maintain a schedule for periodic policy review, and fund targeted training for administrators and hearing officers to reduce appeals. They suggested boards adopt a policy‑review cadence (for example, a 4‑ to 5‑year rotation) and encouraged trustees to cultivate collegial relationships to reduce public conflict and preserve the district’s accreditation standing.

Board members said they would consider the training recommendations and pursue additional sessions on areas such as managing difficult public comment, visitor protocols, and advanced communications practices.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Whole Board Governance Training - April 16, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Trainer guidance for trustees emphasized governance roles, avoiding micro‑management, executive‑session confidentiality, meeting preparation, and communications norms to preserve trust and accreditation.","taxTitle","Savannah-Chatham County, School Districts, Georgia","taxId",15361,"location","Georgia","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6271139,"Training for Savannah‑Chatham board underscores complexity of student discipline: self‑defense, staff intervention and off‑campus misconduct",3969,2751000,6720000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3029310-197175af062b276dd15a5008c4b2b0f2&start=2751&end=6720","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3029310-197175af062b276dd15a5008c4b2b0f2/thumbnail_2751000.jpg","/articles/6271139/Georgia/Training-for-SavannahChatham-board-underscores-complexity-of-student-discipline-selfdefense-staff-intervention-and-offcampus-misconduct","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6271139-013f8a6106ac918e8e9f4bed5367ba39/orig.mp4?Expires=1773584045&Signature=UmLls4yRK2gc6z-iVix6p1PaRdhLxUg17QbVF7UVcaUstTVQ7Y~phsTgUumA3pAXuX1wP30ZyBQui99baGqVQ~z2mOVRvpAeLde2ZU~KQ~7GwwlNtJINJHZbwcEdGpPghYwwhTSfugHTSF7hAltBDJ6V6oX7BPNzGcs1QIQdim6vorilnXSQNL1Fw~utuOy6I4OY5BLYgVa4vJ6vzO2DR9yyKF49fNbr42Cd99nXRrz8c-el~5snnjBcOfJcPnjvQ3HFy2XguoCDiSoJ-iw2YzyzZ~lN7X9BdXlxTUp3ld3r2LW8S1R5jxI4u~hkIjx~aLIqYYo66EvjiZ3P~P3kmg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a whole‑board governance training on April 16, Parker Poe attorneys reviewed how Georgia law and district rules distinguish physical offenses, self‑defense, and the limits of school jurisdiction for off‑campus misconduct.

Suzanne Wilcox, an education attorney with Parker Poe, explained legal differences between assault and battery under Georgia law — assault as apprehension of harm, battery as physical contact — and described how schools often categorize mutual fighting versus unprovoked battery. “Battery is the contact,” Wilcox said, noting Georgia distinguishes simple battery (minor contact) from battery causing visible bodily harm.

The trainers emphasized that true self‑defense, while potentially dispositive, is uncommon when cases reach the board level. If a student proves a bona fide claim of self‑defense — use of reasonable force against an imminent threat without provocation — discipline may not be appropriate. Wilcox and Gupta recommended that board decisions explicitly record whether the self‑defense claim was considered, citing recent state board appeals where reviewers expected a specific nod to the defense in decision language.

Panelists discussed staff intervention in fights and the tradeoffs for policy. Speakers noted school staff may be required by professional standards to intervene to keep students safe but that interventions sometimes lead to staff injuries and subsequent disciplinary or legal issues for students. Attorneys warned boards against over‑scripting staff actions in policy because highly prescriptive procedures can create “ministerial duties” and potential legal exposure; instead they advised targeted training (mindset training, de‑escalation, and safety protocols) and clarified that some districts provide indemnification or legal representation for employees acting without malice in the line of duty.

The presentation reviewed off‑campus jurisdiction rules: schools may assert jurisdiction for conduct that occurs on school property (including bus stops), at school‑sponsored activities, on school transportation, or en route to or from school when that conduct either qualifies as a felony or would materially endanger safety or disrupt the educational process. Trainers said districts can, but are not required to, discipline for off‑campus felonies and encouraged case‑by‑case legal review. The presenters also explained that a district is not automatically required to reverse a disciplinary outcome if criminal charges later change, though some districts make limited exceptions for full exoneration.

Attorneys reviewed special‑education constraints: manifestation determinations can limit discipline for students with disabilities, the 10‑day initial rule provides limited parity, and districts never truly “permanently expel” a special‑education student without providing at least some alternative educational services (reduced FAPE). The presenters urged separating special‑education procedural reviews from disciplinary determinations and making sure staff understand child‑find and evaluation obligations.

Board members asked detailed questions about how administrators should act during live incidents, whether teachers should or must physically intervene, and how the district supports staff after injuries. Presenters recommended policy language that clarifies criteria for staff response, strong training programs, use of recorded footage in specialist classrooms, and clear HR processes for incidents that implicate both staff conduct and student discipline.

Attorneys cautioned that frequent disciplinary hearings are costly in time and money — they estimated federal litigation can range from about $500,000 to $1 million for a full federal case — and recommended streamlining options such as limiting oral arguments, reducing three‑person tribunals, and maintaining a code‑of‑conduct review schedule to reduce appeals and inconsistency.","Outside counsel walked board members through legal definitions of assault and battery, the rare but consequential defense of self‑defense, staff intervention risks, off‑campus jurisdiction, and special‑education constraints on discipline.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6271143,"Savannah-Chatham lawyers warn new Title VI certification brings heightened federal scrutiny of DEI programs",1637,388000,2025000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3029310-197175af062b276dd15a5008c4b2b0f2&start=388&end=2025","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3029310-197175af062b276dd15a5008c4b2b0f2/thumbnail_388000.jpg","/articles/6271143/Georgia/Savannah-Chatham-lawyers-warn-new-Title-VI-certification-brings-heightened-federal-scrutiny-of-DEI-programs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6271143-9d39540c4427897fd9117c110b5f6b78/orig.mp4?Expires=1773584045&Signature=MtZ6wuO-afVN6JvkG~qvViMDNrA65h6-YFYWe2XYmXW-Xngm1pCh3p-qpqMZEzXP4--Uy-PAmwhqUH2mu-rMPU4lQnN4jaGzwc48Z2gS5F9huRP2ZcEYsX6danlKVT1D2tjXR0yiLHtTJRgMdeaVf6x5dcDgKpYIvNF3ZTIAuMj-9AUjxhGRnL~MYhguLRlC-yx3WT8j06yM0iksU0JEzgDatr00KLODQldkpTN9e5rreYUaSPTRJmO~fbRRTVr-kdIBA9pUZQkhWMQduOHjj5Q~yJ2n7LU9HNgLAvY53mkTYDw6fSSIQcSvnYMhrsY4ChpGqS8pHZUK5vNY6Xs9EA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Nina Gupta, an education attorney with Parker Poe, told the Savannah‑Chatham County Board of Education on April 16 that the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and Department of Justice (DOJ) have signaled a stricter enforcement posture on Title VI and related guidance, and that districts nationwide received a rapid demand for a Title VI compliance certification.

Gupta said the April 3 notice required certification within days and was later extended to April 24; she described the certification as largely duplicative of existing obligations but said the current administration is taking an expansive view of what Title VI prohibits, and that the department has warned that some DEI practices may be scrutinized. “This certification, to my mind, is repetitive and duplicative of certifications that you have already provided,” Gupta said.

The presentation placed the certification in context: the administration’s position draws partly on language in the Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision and on a DOE “dear colleague” letter that initially framed some DEI activities as potentially discriminatory but that the department later modified. Gupta and co‑presenter Suzanne Wilcox urged boards and administrators to review DEI and equity policies for legal compliance, train leadership on evolving federal standards, and coordinate with state education officials and district counsel.

Attorneys warned of enforcement tools that could follow a false certification, including civil penalties under federal statutes such as the False Claims Act and the possibility of loss of federal funding, but noted ED’s April clarification said certifications would not be used as the sole basis for enforcement until after April 24. Gupta summarized the practical options: districts could sign the certification (the presenters said they saw limited immediate downside), revise policies to reduce use of contested terminology, or coordinate with other districts and counsel if they choose not to sign.

During Q&A, board members asked whether previously obligated or encumbered grant funds could be clawed back if a program were later found to violate Title VI; presenters said a clawback was possible in theory and stressed uncertainty about how aggressively the department would pursue different entities. The presenters recommended monitoring litigation around higher education and large districts and suggested subscribing to legal alerts; they also described low‑cost options such as retaining a federal lobby presence or subscribing to executive‑order trackers to help a district stay informed.

The trainers, who described their firm’s education practice and national work with districts, offered to provide model policy language, share client alerts, and coordinate with district counsel on tailored compliance steps. Gupta and Wilcox emphasized the distinction between legal obligations on the books and the administration’s current interpretive approach, urging careful review rather than immediate policy overreaction.

District officials said they would discuss next steps with counsel and the state department of education.

The training moved on to student discipline topics after the Title VI session ended.","Outside education attorneys told the Savannah‑Chatham County Board of Education during whole‑board training that a recent U.S. Department of Education demand to certify compliance with Title VI heightens enforcement risk for district DEI and affinity programs, though signing the certification may carry limited immediate legal exposure.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Whole‑board training reminds Savannah‑Chatham trustees: stay on the balcony — policy, not operations

Training for Savannah‑Chatham board underscores complexity of student discipline: self‑defense, staff intervention and off‑campus misconduct

Savannah-Chatham lawyers warn new Title VI certification brings heightened federal scrutiny of DEI programs