San Marcos Unified tells public policy update aligns with state penal code; board and residents debate public notification and safety

A group of public speakers pressed the San Marcos Unified School District Board of Education on Thursday about how the district shares information about registered sex offenders and how it checks visitors on school campuses. The questions followed a staff-led update that the district is revising its policy to align with state law and a California School Boards Association model policy.

“Under California Penal Code 290.45,” Superintendent Andy Johnson said in response to repeated public questions, “a district employee to whom *** offender information is disclosed by law enforcement may only disclose such information when authorized to do so through the law enforcement entity.” Johnson told the board the district’s policy had not been updated since 2005 and that the proposed update clarifies the district must align with penal-code requirements and law-enforcement discretion.

Johnson and staff outlined specific legal limits cited in the proposed update: law enforcement may share a registrant’s name, address or photograph, but a 2019 state law restricts public disclosure of Internet identifiers (social-media handles and email addresses) to only three investigative circumstances — a sex-related crime, a kidnapping, or human trafficking.

Several speakers in public comment said they feared the proposed policy would withhold information that families need to keep children safe. One speaker who identified herself as Audra said she feared that information about predators could be hidden and that “that is actually putting people in danger.” Other commenters urged the district to be transparent with parents when there are on-campus risks.

District staff said campuses already use a visitor-management system, IdentiKid, that requires visitors to scan a driver’s license at the front desk and will flag registered offenders in the screen to office staff. “Any visitor must swipe their driver’s license through the system,” Johnson said. “It will automatically pop up to the office staff to identify, and it specifically checks Megan’s Law. So it will flag on the screen, and notify the school staff that that person is on the registry. So that person would never be allowed on campus.”

The district also described its hiring and onboarding checks: all employees undergo fingerprint-based background checks through the Department of Justice and the FBI, and personnel who have a qualifying offense are barred from employment or may be terminated if new information arises.

The board did not adopt a final policy during the meeting; staff said the policy presented to the board reflected guidance from the California School Boards Association and state penal code and that the board’s recommended update is intended to mirror current law and law-enforcement practice. Johnson said the district will defer to law enforcement guidance in individual cases and will publish a board policy that clarifies that requirement.

Public commenters included residents who defended inclusive school policies and others who called for more transparency; the board and staff took questions from multiple residents and reiterated that the district will follow law enforcement on what information can be publicly disclosed and that IdentiKid is used at entry points to flag registrants.