Riverton students and Rotary ask board to sanction Interact Club; board tables decision amid budget and policy questions

Students from Riverton High School and members of the Riverton Rotary Club asked the Fremont County School District #25 Board of Education on Sept. 9 to formally sanction a student-run Interact Club at the high school.

Katie (past president of the Riverton Rotary Club and Interact sponsor) told the board the Rotary club had voted unanimously to support the students. Student leader Tierney said the group has appointed officers, selected a faculty advisor and that more than 15 students had committed; organizers said 21 students attended an initial meeting. “We respectfully ask the board to recognize Interact as a sanctioned club at Riverton High School,” Tierney said.

Speakers from existing community service groups urged the board to allow Interact alongside existing organizations. Gay Hughes, a Key Club advisor and Kiwanis representative, and Cornell Davis, a Key Club district convention chair, described Key Club’s service record and urged careful advisor involvement. Rotarians and other community members said clubs often collaborate and that having both Interact and Key Club can increase student opportunities.

Board members and the superintendent discussed differences between a sanctioned and an unsanctioned club. The superintendent summarized district practice (from a written summary provided to the board): sanctioned clubs meet on school grounds during designated times with a faculty or staff advisor and may fundraise through district student-activity accounts; unsanctioned clubs may still request to meet on school grounds outside instructional time and may use facilities if space is available but cannot fundraise under the school’s name or through district accounts. The superintendent also said district-sanctioned clubs generally require the district to assume additional oversight and legal responsibilities, including accountability for an advisor and for funds.

Board members raised two central concerns: budget and liability. Board members said the district’s budget for the current year has already been set and that adding a sanctioned club would create a new activity account and potential personnel pay obligations for a faculty advisor. One board member noted that even if a community sponsor offered to pay an advisor, district policy typically requires district-managed compensation when the club is sanctioned. The board discussed legal precedent and equal-access considerations; a board member recalled a Utah court case used as an example where allowing clubs triggered a district-wide clubs decision. Trustee Ally offered to research the legal landscape and return with details.

After extended discussion and public comment, a board motion to table the request passed. The board agreed to revisit the question; the superintendent was asked to review budget and policy implications with the business manager and bring revised information back to the board. The board did not deny the students access to the school or to publicity; members said unsanctioned clubs could continue to meet and use facilities under existing community-use procedures.

The board’s action was procedural: it voted to table further action on formal sanctioning for two weeks to allow staff to gather more information about financial and supervisory implications. Several speakers thanked the board for listening and for community support.