The Little Miami Board of Education spent the bulk of a special meeting on Sept. 16, 2025, debating Policy 3112, the district's board'staff communications policy, especially language about board members visiting school buildings.

The discussion centered on whether board members may conduct unannounced "general interest" visits and whether those visits should require escorts, background checks or identification badges. Some board members argued unannounced visits are part of their elected duties; administrators said escorts and consistent procedures protect students and staff and reduce confusion.

Board member Dave Wallace said his visits were "general interest" and that "I do not ... I work for the community," arguing members should be able to enter buildings without advance notice. Regina Morgan, superintendent, urged a consistent protocol: "I would just like to propose that the policy states that you can be announced or unannounced, but once there, you would follow the procedure of having an escort." A board member who identified herself as Miss Price noted legal and safety dimensions, saying administrators and board members should consider background checks and site safety when drafting rules.

Board members discussed several practical options: allowing announced or unannounced visits but requiring check-in at the office and escort while in instructional areas; issuing badges and conducting background checks for members who prefer not to be escorted; or allowing two board members to visit together as a practical compromise. Several members suggested posting board photos in buildings to help staff identify members.

No formal policy change was adopted at the meeting. Instead, the board directed the administration to draft revised language that clarifies the difference between "general interest" and "official" visits, specifies check-in and escort procedures, and addresses badges and background checks. The superintendent said she would prepare language and return it as a first read at the board's September meeting, with the intent of including the finalized policy in the group of policy adoptions planned for October.

The discussion included operational concerns about staffing escorts and avoiding disruption to instructional time. One board member noted the value of escorted, collaborative walk-throughs: "A team has more eyes. They see better," and said joint visits allow immediate discussion of observations with building staff.

The board framed the next steps as collaborative: administration will draft clearer language reflecting the meeting's concerns, and the board will review that language in the next cycle rather than adopting immediate changes on the floor.

Ending: The board did not vote on language for Policy 3112 at the Sept. 16 meeting; it asked administration to prepare a redraft for a first reading at the September meeting and then to include any final policy changes with the October packet of policy adoptions.