The Jefferson County Board of Education voted to remove a proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) governing Allied behavioral-health services from the business agenda Tuesday after multiple parents and school staff urged the board to keep the provider in schools and several board members said they needed more time to review the document.

Pam Oakes, a teacher in the Jefferson County school system, told the board that Allied’s counselors had intervened when a 10-year-old student in her building expressed plans to harm others. “Had it not been intercepted that day by the quick thinking of the allied counselor, the support of our school team, and law enforcement swift response, our school could have faced a tragedy,” Oakes said, adding that the student later reported receiving ongoing help and was doing better.

The comments were followed by a letter read by Sarah Montgomery on behalf of Sharon Burney. Montgomery identified herself as a White Pine School parent and staff member and said the county has many children with adverse childhood experiences who need in-school support. Quoting Burney’s letter, Montgomery said, “Students that live in abusive and neglectful homes, students that have incarcerated parents, drug addicted parents, and students with mental illness… Students who suffer from ACEs need to have a trusted adult in their life.”

Board discussion focused on process and safeguards. A motion to remove the mental-health MOU from tonight’s new-business agenda was made and seconded; the board chair called the vote and the motion passed. Director of Schools Dr. Arnold read portions of the draft MOU and cited background-check requirements in state law: “Contractor agrees to comply with Tennessee co‑annotated 49‑5‑4‑13… fingerprinting and criminal history record checks conducted by Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, [and] the Federal Bureau of Investigation for all employees, subcontractors, personnel, and volunteers of contractor that will enter the grounds of any Jefferson County school property,” he said, adding the draft also references TCA 49‑5‑13 and Department of Children’s Services checks.

Some board members said they had just received the draft at the work session earlier in the week and wanted more time to review and suggest edits. Board members discussed two paths: (1) discuss and amend the draft as a full board at a public work session and then place a final draft on a business meeting agenda, or (2) allow small-group edits and “hand-carry” a revised draft for consideration at the next business meeting. Multiple members expressed concern about public notice and participation if the board hands a revised draft to the business meeting without sufficient advance public review.

The board directed staff to coordinate schedule options so the MOU can be discussed during a public work session (the group discussed keeping the work session on June 2 but shifting the business meeting date, or holding a special meeting if necessary). No final MOU was approved; the formal item was removed from the current meeting’s agenda.

Supporters at the table credited Allied and similar in-school counseling services with immediate access that families could not otherwise secure amid long wait lists and insurance limits. Several speakers urged the board to include clear background-check and accountability provisions in any final agreement. Dr. Arnold and other board members said the draft contains language intended to address criminal-history checks and contractor liability but that board members still wanted time to propose edits.

The board’s removal of the MOU means no contract or MOU change will be approved tonight; board members said they expect to return the item to a future public work session after further review and revisions.