Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy 161 Grievance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews updates to policies 161 and 161.1 on nondiscrimination and grievance procedures
Summary
On Jan. 29 the Communication and Policy Committee reviewed draft revisions to Policy 161 (nondiscrimination) and Policy 161.1 (discrimination and harassment grievance procedure), discussed timing, investigative timelines, and appeals; the committee agreed to present clean drafts to the full board together.
The Communication and Policy Committee of the Concord School Board reviewed proposed revisions Jan. 29 to Policy 161 (nondiscrimination/equal opportunity) and Policy 161.1 (discrimination and harassment grievance procedure), and discussed how the vacated 2024 Title IX changes affect district policy.
Committee members and Superintendent Kathleen Murphy reviewed substantive edits in the grievance procedure: reporting channels, the district’s obligation to investigate, and timelines for initial determinations and final reports. Murphy described internal roles and deadlines: an initial assessment by the coordinator within five working days; a written investigation summary and recommended corrective actions within 30 working days; and an appeal path that allows a respondent or complainant to appeal to the superintendent (level 2) within five working days of the level-1 decision, with the superintendent delivering a written decision in 10 working days. If appealed, the board would have 15 working days to decide whether to hear the case or refer it to an outside hearing officer; a board or hearing officer decision would be issued within 30 working days, with parties notified within five working days of that decision.
Murphy said the district will use a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for administrative determinations and that the district may proceed with an investigation even if a formal complaint is not filed when the facts indicate a substantial disruption or other grounds to act. She also recommended removing the word “adequate” from the investigative-standard language and using “thorough” to avoid ambiguity. The draft explicitly allows interim measures to protect alleged victims and — where appropriate — alleged respondents while investigations proceed, and it specifies confidentiality limits tied to legal reporting obligations (for example, child-protection or law-enforcement notifications).
Committee members asked for clarity about who receives notifications and how volunteers and facility users would be handled. The draft states that volunteers, contractors and visitors who violate the policy “may be prohibited from entering district property or otherwise restricted while on district property”; members suggested language that preserves superintendent discretion to dismiss volunteers or terminate contracts and to take “other actions deemed necessary” following a substantiated violation.
The committee also discussed appendices and posting requirements: an annual Appendix A with outside-agency contact information, adding the plan to the district website alongside other plans (for example, the suicide-prevention plan), and including the policy in student handbooks. Murphy said principals had reviewed the draft, are generally supportive, and want to vet materials used with students through the curriculum review process.
The committee agreed to hold the first reading of 161 and 161.1 until both clean drafts — including definitions aligned to RSA language where appropriate — can be presented together to the full board. No formal board vote on the policies occurred at the meeting; staff will deliver the cleaned, numbered drafts and the appended plan for the committee’s next agenda.
