Board debates wireless device policy language, asks staff for clearer confiscation and return rules

Board members spent an extended portion of the June 3 workshop reviewing proposed updates to the district’s wireless communication device (WCD) policy and related technology‑use policies.

Ms. Roberts, a board member, highlighted several places in the draft policies where contact points and procedures could be clearer and suggested repeating a block of contact information for different audiences so readers know where to report student versus employee issues. "When we're putting those contacts, we should put that whole block of contacts and specify whether it's student or whether it's employee," she said.

The board discussed specific disciplinary language. Ms. Roberts read the draft paragraph that said: "Students who violate this provision and or use a wireless communication device to violate the privacy rights of another person may have their wireless communication device confiscated and held until a parent guardian picks it up," and asked whether "may" or "shall" was intended. A board member replied on the record, "Should be shall," and the board discussed making confiscation mandatory for privacy‑invasion offenses.

Members debated whether particularly egregious offenses — for example, recording someone in a locker room — should allow the district to retain a device until the end of the school year or whether standard language that devices are held "until retrieved by the parent or guardian or turned over to law enforcement" is sufficient. Board members suggested creating a standalone paragraph addressing retention in very serious cases and noted the district would turn devices over to the sheriff’s office when appropriate.

The board also discussed operational details: whether students should be allowed to use school phones to contact parents during the day, whether confiscated devices should be returned only after students have completed any disciplinary consequences, and which campus areas (classrooms, gymnasiums, tracks) should be covered by the policy. On the question of returning devices after discipline, staff and board members questioned the practical implications of retaining devices until out‑of‑school suspension is completed and several said they did not want the district to operate as a long‑term storage facility for high‑end devices.

No final vote or adoption of policy language occurred at the workshop. Board members reached tentative agreement on clarifying language and structure — including placing severe‑offense retention rules in a separate paragraph — and asked staff to prepare a revised draft reflecting the “shall” confiscation language and the other clarifications for a future meeting.