Port Washington committee reviews updated bullying-prevention policy, asks attorneys to synthesize regulation

The Port Washington Union Free School District Policy & Personnel Committee reviewed a state-required update to its harassment and bullying prevention and intervention policy and directed district attorneys to synthesize the policy and corresponding regulation to remove redundancies.

Committee Chair Deborah Brooks opened discussion by noting the state-mandated updates and said the district had already submitted the draft to attorneys for review. “I would recommend the committee give it to the attorneys to do a better synthesis and remove redundancies,” Brooks said.

Members raised technical and substantive questions. Sandra Alvarez pointed out that the “protected groups” list on page 3 omitted the plain word gender even though it included “gender identity and expression.” The committee asked counsel to correct the definition so it reads consistently. Brooks and others agreed the attorney-drafted paragraph that would prescribe curriculum-level detail was optional and likely should be removed; Brooks said she would not redline that paragraph and would remove it from the policy draft.

Committee members also debated how the policy should describe reporting and complaint tools. Alvarez and others questioned whether the referenced “bullying complaint form” is distinct from an incident reporting tool used in the district; committee members confirmed an existing harassment complaint form (5025r) and asked staff and counsel to ensure the policy text matches the existing form name. Several members pressed for an anonymous reporting option: one member said anonymous reports are sometimes necessary for single-incident reports and asked for language acknowledging anonymous reporting options where appropriate.

On sanctions and tone, members asked counsel to consider replacing the phrase “disciplinary consequences” with wording less punitive in tone (for example, “consequences/remediation” or “support and appropriate consequences”) and to ensure the policy’s language aligns with the district’s Code of Character, Culture and Conduct. Brooks and others asked counsel to provide clearer definitions for words such as “discrimination” and to avoid circular definitions (for example, replacing “discrimination means discrimination” with a substantive definition).

Other requested clarifications included: explicitly stating the reporting trigger (oral reports within one school day of learning or becoming aware of an incident), moving the sentence about the complaint form into the incident-reporting section, and adding language that curricular material will be included “as developmentally appropriate.” Brooks asked counsel to decide whether duplicated language should live in the policy or the regulation and to return a consolidated draft.

The committee also discussed training language and cross-references: it asked that the term “professional development team” be replaced with the district’s established “professional development committee,” and asked counsel to clarify whether certain trainings are required annually or “as needed.”

No formal vote was recorded; the committee’s direction to counsel was to revise and return the consolidated policy and regulation for further review and first reading.