Central York SD policy committee reviews redraft of Policy 353 on whistleblower protections

The policy committee of Central York SD reviewed a new draft of Policy 353, the district's whistleblower protection policy, and discussed revisions to definitions, reporting channels, confidentiality and appeals procedures.

Committee members said the draft incorporates input from administration, human resources and legal counsel and makes several substantive changes. "I appreciate the thought everyone put into this and that is reflected in this draft as well," the meeting chair said as the committee opened discussion.

The draft simplifies several definitions and adds examples. Committee members said the policy was changed to use the single term "misconduct" rather than the prior, longer phrasing; the definition of "waste" was narrowed to conduct or omissions that result in substantial abuse, misuse, destruction or loss of district or external resources; and "wrongdoing" now explicitly covers violations that are not merely technical or minimal. The draft lists illustrative examples that were read into the record, including theft; fraudulent or misleading financial reporting; violations of district safety and security policies that create unsafe workplaces or learning environments; forgery; unauthorized alteration or manipulation of records or computer files; improper destruction of records; improper use of district assets; improper access to confidential information; receiving compensation for unperformed services; and violations of the board's conflict-of-interest policy. The draft also adds an item covering "abuse of or discrimination against a district employee, vendor, student or person connected with the district."

The committee added a definition of a "bad-faith report"—a complaint submitted with deliberately falsified information or an intent to deceive—and discussed consequences referenced later in the draft.

Members discussed expanding who may use the district reporting process. The draft now explicitly includes independent contractors and the committee agreed to add "agency employees working in the district" to cover substitute and agency-provided staff. Director Stewart emphasized the policy's central purpose: to protect the person making a report. Committee members debated limits of protection when the subject of a complaint is not a district employee and noted that, in some cases, certain investigatory or disciplinary steps may need to be directed to an independent contractor's employer. The committee did not adopt final wording for every contingency and asked legal counsel for further guidance.

Committee members also debated how anonymous reports will be received and logged. The draft proposes a combination of avenues "that may include" a dedicated email address, a hotline or voice mailbox, or a software platform or online service approved by the district. Jill, speaking for administration/human resources, said the district currently lacks a fully anonymous digital platform and recommended adding caveats such as "when available" or "if available" so the administrative regulation can address implementation. "That's a discussion that would have to take place in the event this passes," she said.

On the record-keeping and format of reports, the committee agreed to require reports to be submitted in writing or as an audio recording that can be documented; members removed language that would have required receiving staff to convert casual verbal remarks into formal complaints. The draft keeps an option for anonymous written submissions (including a physical mailbox) and for attributed reports, with the district committing to inform identified complainants of investigation outcomes "to the extent consistent with law and confidentiality needs."

Appeals and investigatory oversight were discussed but not finalized. The draft calls for a procedure to appeal findings or outcomes, including the possibility of appeals to the board and grievance hearings, but committee members debated whether the procedure should explicitly state which parties may appeal (complainant, subject of complaint, or both). Director Stewart and others said the language is intentionally general and that administrative regulations would specify appeal mechanics.

A point of contention was a recommendation attributed to legal counsel (Stockton Leader) about limiting public disclosure of complaint and investigative records under the district's open-records practice. Some committee members said the draft as written could be read to exempt complaint files from public-records requests; the group asked staff to seek clarification from Stockton Leader on what can legally be withheld and whether protections differ while an investigation is open versus after it is closed. The committee agreed to return the draft with clarified language on confidentiality and disclosure.

No formal motion or vote was taken at the meeting. Members asked staff to edit the draft to (1) add "agency employees" alongside independent contractors, (2) ensure the administrative regulation accommodates current district capabilities for anonymous reporting, (3) require written or recorded submissions for documentation, and (4) obtain legal clarification on public-records disclosure for complaint files. The chair said staff will circulate the revised draft after consulting legal counsel and HR. The meeting adjourned without a vote.