Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Whistleblower Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board takes first reading of revised whistleblower policy; members ask for clarity on misconduct and reporting timelines
Summary
The York Suburban board reviewed a revised whistleblower policy in its first reading, discussing the policy’s reliance on state definitions, distinctions between calendar and business days in reporting timelines, who may report and the board’s role in investigating complaints.
The York Suburban School District board conducted a first reading Sept. 29 of a revised whistleblower policy that clarifies reporting processes and tightens language on timelines and who may be covered by protections, but board members requested several textual clarifications.
Superintendent Dr. Krauser told the board the policy had been revised and that the district had “returned back to the state's definition of misconduct” in some places, but a board member clarified that the state policy does not define “misconduct” and that the district’s policy would therefore include its own definition. The district’s counsel provided guidance that state policy does not set a single definition and that legal review advised how misconduct could be handled in the district policy.
Reporting timelines and definitions: Board members pressed administrators about inconsistent references in the draft policy to “calendar days” in one section and “business days” in another. Administrators said the district had tried to match the timeline language used in other district policies but agreed to review the draft to align the terminology consistently.
Scope and board role: The draft includes language clarifying the role of a compliance officer and indicates that the board as a whole may not be the initial decisionmaker on factual determinations about alleged misconduct. Board members sought confirmation that the board’s role would be consistent with legal guidance and not to serve as the first-level fact finder for every report.
Public comment and requests: During public comment, a resident urged the board to add a preliminary investigative step handled by a small group (compliance officer and counsel) before the full board receives whistleblower reports, to reduce the risk of unverified allegations becoming community chatter. The commenter also argued the policy should treat references to officers and counsel as roles rather than naming persons.
Next steps: Administrators said the policy would return for additional review and a second reading after suggested language changes to clarify the definitions, timeline references and the role of the compliance officer and board.
