Committee amends and adopts expulsion policy JDE; changes marijuana expulsion language to reflect state law

On Sept. 2 the Policy Committee of the Whole considered and approved revisions to policy JDE, the district’s expulsion policy, including changes to how marijuana possession is handled under state law and clarifications to the firearms/knives/drugs section. Committee members debated language about first offenses, principal discretion and the disciplinary-review process before voting to amend then adopt the policy.

At the start of the item a committee member summarized that the draft reflects a review by the district's outside reviewer (referred to in the meeting as Forethought) and by the district’s legal counsel. The draft replaces language that had required a four-semester expulsion for certain offenses with a two-semester standard to match recent state law. One participant said, “So possession of marijuana is not expulsion, but second is.”

A motion from Mister Piazza proposed deleting an entire paragraph in the firearms/knives/drugs section that the presenter described as Forethought’s recommendation; the motion was seconded by Miss Rose. Supporters of the amendment argued removing the paragraph would simplify the policy and preserve an established disciplinary-review process; others said leaving the more detailed paragraph would allow principals and the disciplinary-review committee (DRC) to consider circumstances such as whether a substance was unintentionally in a student’s possession.

During discussion, committee members described the district’s existing process: alleged possession is initially handled at the school level and referred to the DRC for investigation and recommendation, and the superintendent has authority to modify lengths of suspension or expulsion findings as allowed by law. One committee member said that even if a first offense is eligible for two semesters, “the DRC would review all the evidence and could recommend two semesters just like they do now.” Another member expressed concern that removing the paragraph would remove a principal’s ability to resolve cases on campus without subjecting students to the formal DRC suspension process.

Motion and outcome: Mister Piazza moved to delete the paragraph in question; Miss Rose seconded. The committee voted and the motion to amend “deleting that paragraph” carried. Following the amendment, Miss Piazza moved to adopt the amended policy; Miss Rose seconded and the committee voted to adopt the policy as amended. The transcript records the chair saying “Voting is open. Motion carries.” The transcript does not include roll-call vote tallies. One committee member asked that the minutes show they voted no on both actions; the request was noted in the meeting record.

Committee members raised broader concerns about consistency and fairness in discipline. Speakers emphasized that the DRC process provides a standardized review intended to reduce inconsistent outcomes if principals were required to make all on-the-spot determinations, while others argued that building administrators should retain authority to resolve clear, non-criminal misunderstandings without initiating protracted suspensions.

The committee chair closed the item and directed staff to place the revised JDE on the full board agenda. The policy change reflects the state-level change from four to two semesters for marijuana possession and formalizes the district’s reliance on the DRC and superintendent review in disciplinary cases.