District staff say state law changed expulsion and training rules; district may still require local training

School district staff said during a meeting that recent state legislation changed mandatory-expulsion timeframes and the district’s obligations for mandatory reporting and employee training, and they described how the district plans to respond.

District staff emphasized that the legislature reduced some mandatory-expulsion timeframes and altered how first-time possession cases can be handled. “They reduced the mandatory expulsion times,” one staff member said. The same staff member said the law now allows discretion when a student is caught for a first-time offense related to controlled-substance possession, but added, “we are choosing to still recommend on such an infraction.”

Staff also described a change in mandatory-reporting language tied to increased school resource officer (SRO) presence on campuses. As one staff member summarized, under last year’s language “if you report [something] to the SRO, you still had to follow-up as the mandatory report.” That staff member said the new definition changes how reporting to an SRO intersects with the district’s mandatory-reporter follow-up duties.

On employee training, staff said the state removed a prior statutory requirement. “In years past, new employees to the district, they were required to do a mandatory 4 hour training ... New our veteran employees were only required to do 2,” one speaker said, and later noted, “the legislation has removed that requirement.” Staff said the district can still provide or require training locally: the central office and school principals can arrange trainings and the district’s online platform handled by Mr. Butler can be used to deliver them.

The discussion as captured in the transcript centered on how the district will exercise discretion within the changed legal framework. Staff noted that while the law gives the district options on expulsion and training, the district’s presented approach keeps “some teeth in” discipline rules and leaves open the ability for principals or central office staff to require campus-specific training. The transcript does not record a formal vote or ordinance adopting a specific new district policy during this exchange.

The meeting also referenced staff members who handle training and implementation; staff named Mr. Butler as the person who manages the district’s online training platform and mentioned Mr. Woodrow in the context of who might help schools arrange campus-level training. The transcript ends with staff asking about continuing professional learning team (PLT) sessions.

No statute or ordinance was cited by name in the transcript; staff referred generally to “legislation” and “the statute” and described its effects as presented above. The meeting record in the transcript does not show a finalized, adopted local policy change in the excerpt provided; rather, it records staff explanations of state-level changes and how the district may apply them.