The Governance Committee of the Board of Education asked district administration on Aug. 28 to return with explicit administrative regulations describing how employees should report harassment when a supervisor or principal is the alleged harasser.
Board Member Margo Bellamy raised the issue during a review of the district's personnel harassment policy, asking "if the principal is the source of the problem, then what do we do?" and urging additional reporting options beyond routing complaints first to a building principal.
Committee members and staff discussed existing pathways and the district's plans for an "employee complaints dashboard" that would present multiple reporting routes. A member identified as an HR staff member said the district sometimes handles bypasses through collective bargaining agreements and that the principal contract contains language allowing an employee to report to a supervisor of the principal in specific cases. The committee also heard that the district recently moved equal employment opportunity (EEO) and employee relations functions out of HR and into Tony Riley's department, which will play a role in investigations.
Several members urged that allegations be forwarded to the office responsible for EEO or employee relations for investigation rather than handled solely at the school level. One committee speaker argued that "human resources should be the subject matter expert" for investigations and that principals typically lack the training to conduct legally required inquiries. Members also recommended including a clear nonretaliation statement in policy language and making sure employees know where to go if their supervisor is the subject of a complaint.
The committee discussed mediation availability: staff said district personnel will support mediation efforts but that internal mediators may not be seen as neutral when disputes involve supervisors. Members expressed skepticism about anonymous reporting because of limited follow-up, and emphasized the need for an accessible, documented pathway that protects employees.
Rather than revise the board policy immediately, the committee directed administration to draft administrative regulation language (ARs) and return with proposed wording and guidance for the employee complaints dashboard. Committee members suggested bringing the draft to the committee in about one to two months and involving Tony Riley in the work.
No formal motion or vote to change policy was taken during the meeting; the committee's instruction to administration was a direction to prepare AR language for future consideration.
The committee closed the agenda item after staff agreed to produce draft ARs and to clarify reporting pathways, mediation options, and nonretaliation language for board review.