Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Students, staff urge updated "safe‑zone" language; teaching assistant raises retaliation and ADA concerns
Summary
A student speaker urged revision of the district’s 2017 safe‑zone resolution to better protect undocumented students and asked for staff training and an updated response plan; a 13‑year teaching assistant spoke publicly to allege wrongful termination and retaliation and warned the board of potential legal exposure.
Two members of the public used the Feb. 20 public comment period to press the board on personnel and immigration‑related concerns.
A senior who identified themself as representing students concerned about undocumented peers said the district’s 2017 “safe‑zone” resolution needs updated language and better implementation, including staff training, an updated response plan when immigration authorities come to schools and clearer schoolwide communications. The speaker said they were grateful for Superintendent Johnson’s Jan. 27 statement but asked the board to adopt a revised resolution with updated language and an educational program for staff and students; the speaker said the petition and proposed revisions were signed by 350 students, 408 teachers, 12 staff and 30 community members.
“Student safety should be our school's top priority,” the student said during remarks to the board, urging the board to adopt revisions to the 2017 D200 safe‑zone resolution and to commit to staff training and updated response protocols.
Later in the public comment period, a longtime district teaching assistant, who said he has worked with the district nearly 13 years, told the board he believes the administration is seeking to terminate his employment on false grounds and in retaliation for advocacy and grievances he filed about ADA and labor‑practice issues. He alleged the district failed to engage in a good‑faith interactive process regarding accommodations, described multiple temporary assignments covering staff absences and said an independent medical examiner had concluded he could perform essential functions. He told the board he was prepared to pursue legal action if the termination moved forward.
The board chair responded that confidential personnel matters could not be resolved in open session and that the employee would be offered the opportunity to address the board in closed session per district and legal procedures. The board did not take any action on these matters at the Feb. 20 meeting.
