Oak Park board debates visitor/volunteer background checks, legal review requested and motion to summon counsel fails
Summary
Trustees debated proposed clarifications to visitor and volunteer background-check policies on May 12. The board reviewed attorney edits to policies 6012 and 7009, debated whether to have counsel appear to answer questions, and voted on a motion to summon the attorney; the motion failed.
Trustees spent an extended portion of the May 12 Oak Park Board of Education meeting debating proposed revisions and legal clarification for background checks on volunteers and visitors, and whether the district’s outside counsel should appear in person to explain how state law and policy intersect.
District staff told the board that Miller Johnson attorney Adam Blaylock had reviewed board policy 6012 (visitors) and policy 7009 (volunteers) and proposed “common-sense revisions” intended to clarify when a background check is required. The staff summary said the attorney had reviewed the board meeting video and prepared redlined suggestions; the document was included in the meeting packet for later review.
Several trustees said they wanted the attorney to appear in person so the board and the public could ask questions about how the Michigan statutes cited by counsel relate to visitor and volunteer screening. Trustee remarks repeatedly returned to two questions: (1) how the district defines “visitor” versus “volunteer,” and (2) whether the Michigan Compiled Laws permit background checks of visitors.
Board action and vote: a motion to summon the attorney to the meeting and have counsel explain the statutory basis for background checks was moved and seconded. The roll call on that motion recorded votes of Yes: Trustee Tyler and Trustee Cochran; No: Trustee Madison, Trustee Perriman Kangs, President Alvin and Trustee Clark. The motion failed on a 2–4 vote.
After the failed motion trustees discussed next steps. Several trustees requested that staff provide the existing policy text alongside the attorney’s redlined edits and that the board receive a clearer attachment showing prior policy language and the proposed changes. Trustees also asked for the superintendent’s administrative regulations that implement policy, and some directed staff to return with a redlined version and the attorney present at a future meeting if the board so requests.
Why it matters: trustees tied the background-check discussion to recurring complaints from alumni groups and volunteers about inconsistent instructions and late notice for required clearances. Board members said they want a clear, public explanation of the rules that will govern volunteers, alumni and visitors so individuals and event organizers understand whether they must complete background checks before interacting with students.
What’s next: staff said legal redlines are available and agreed to provide the current policy language and a redlined draft showing the proposed changes. Trustees asked that counsel appear at a future meeting if needed and requested the superintendent’s administrative regulations related to the policy.
