Board members reviewed a draft whistleblower/administrative-reporting paragraph and agreed the current sentence was confusing about where to report alleged misconduct when the administrator's immediate supervisor is unresponsive or is the person under scrutiny. Members asked staff to separate the options into distinct sentences clarifying both scenarios.
Why it matters: Clear reporting pathways are essential for employee protection and consistent administrative response.
Discussion: Members walked through the language line by line. One member initially read the sentence incorrectly and suggested a change; after parsing the paragraph, members concluded the intended meaning was: an administrator should report alleged misconduct to the administrator's immediate supervisor; if the immediate supervisor is not responsive, or if the immediate supervisor is the person whose behavior is in question, the report should go to the district administrator. Board members recommended separating the clauses into distinct sentences so readers would not misinterpret who should receive reports.
Context and next steps: The board noted related employee-level policies appear in the 4000 series and that staff will clarify cross-references (for example, where employee reporting appears elsewhere). The board directed staff to revise the paragraph for clarity; no formal vote was taken.