Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Safety Equity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and community members urge Desert Sands to bar ICE access and condemn racial incidents
Summary
Two speakers at public comment asked the board to publicly assure students are safe from immigration enforcement on campus and to adopt an explicit anti‑racism statement and actions after what one speaker described as repeated dismissiveness.
Two community members used the public comment period at the July 15 Desert Sands Unified School District meeting to urge the board to take public positions on two separate but related student-safety and equity concerns: limiting immigration enforcement access to campuses and issuing a clear, district-level response to racial incidents.
Kristen Bossey, a parent of two former Desert Sands students and an employee at Thomas Jefferson Middle School, asked the board to “make a statement that all students are safe in this district, regardless of their immigration status.” She told the board she was concerned about immigration agents’ presence in school front offices and said that, in her view, limiting agents to front offices does not sufficiently protect students because students are frequently present in those spaces.
Sierra Boyle, who identified herself as a Black community member, criticized the board for what she described as repeated dismissiveness and silence on racial incidents in district schools. Boyle said she has repeatedly asked the board to act and received no acknowledgment; she said, “Your silence gives them permission,” and urged the board to adopt an explicit resolution condemning racism and to take visible steps to protect students and staff of color.
Board policy and procedures on public comment were read aloud at the start of the period; the board president cited Bylaws of the Board number 9323 and a related procedural citation (printed on the agenda) that limits the board’s ability to take action on matters not on the agenda. Those bylaws were noted by staff to explain the public-comment framework and time limits.
No formal board action, motion, or directed staff follow-up on either issue was recorded during the meeting’s open session. The speakers’ requests were entered into the record as public comment; the board did not vote on a policy change or make an immediate public statement on either immigration-enforcement access or adoption of an anti‑racism resolution during the July 15 meeting.
