The Board of Education policy committee voted 2‑1 to approve revisions to Policy 8.60 on visitors to school after debate over whether administrators should be authorized to deny or condition access for people with certain criminal histories.

The revisions — described at the committee meeting as largely attorney‑vetted with one paragraph restored from an earlier draft — will proceed with legal review of staff implementation protocols. Committee members directed staff to return the finalized language to the full board after the attorney review.

Why it matters: The changes address who may enter district property, outline superintendent authority to set visitor guidelines and establish a pathway for the district to handle visitors whose presence is judged detrimental to school operations. Board members said the policy affects parental access, volunteer roles, ADA accommodations and day‑to‑day safety procedures at every school building.

Discussion and detail: Dr. Garrison (superintendent) told the committee that the district does not and would not bar elected board members from school access and that existing operational tools — including the Raptor visitor management system, stay‑away letters and coordination with school resource officers — are used to manage safety. He described Raptor features that can send automatic notifications to administrators and create lists such as custodial/noncustodial designations to control access.

Board Member Romero urged restoring language about visitors with criminal histories to the policy so the district would be prepared to act if needed and recommended the newly added language be vetted by legal counsel before being posted. Romero said the provision was intended to preserve administrator discretion to consider the nature and recency of convictions rather than impose blanket exclusions.

Board President Johnson said she was concerned the draft could unintentionally bar people with nonviolent or long‑ago felony convictions and asked whether the policy should target violent or sex‑related offenses rather than all felonies. Board Member Hankins disagreed, saying the district should have broad discretion to deny access for safety reasons.

Mrs. Beavers (board member) raised a legal and equity concern, noting the draft’s proposed “zero tolerance” language and asking whether excluding parents of students with disabilities could be unlawful; she also observed the district lacks a system that gives the district real‑time access to probation/parole status. Dr. Garrison and other staff emphasized that legal review would address ADA and federal preemption questions and that some operational measures already exist (for example, stay‑away letters and SRO coordination) even if the precise processes are not in policy.

Action and next steps: An amendment to the proposed revisions that would have explicitly added the visitors‑with‑criminal‑history paragraph for immediate inclusion failed on the floor. The committee then approved the revised policy (with the attorney‑vetted language) by a 2‑1 vote and directed staff to have the staff implementation protocols and any 0‑tolerance language vetted by the Board’s attorney and brought back as required. The committee also noted that operational details (how Raptor notifications and custodial lists are used) would be handled administratively and reviewed by legal counsel prior to final publication.

Distinguishing discussion versus decision: The committee’s approval applies to the revised policy language that had already been attorney‑vetted; the additional paragraph about visitors with criminal history remains subject to separate legal vetting (discussion). The failed amendment was discussion that did not become policy (no formal adoption). Staff were directed to obtain legal review before the matter returns to the full board (direction). The committee’s 2‑1 vote is the formal committee action (decision).

Ending: Staff will return any legally revised implementation protocols and the committee’s recommended paragraph to the full Board after attorney review; the committee indicated it wants the district to be ready to act if a safety issue arises but emphasized legal and ADA compliance must be confirmed first.