Tangipahoa Parish committee deletes paragraph and adopts amended expulsion rule; debate centers on principal discretion and DRC role

The Tangipahoa Parish Policy Committee on Sept. 2 amended and adopted revisions to Policy JDE (expulsion), including language reflecting the state's updated approach to student possession of marijuana and changes to disciplinary procedures.

At the start of the discussion, a staff presenter described changes sent by "Forethought" and reviewed by the district's legal counsel, noting the change from four semesters down to two in the presumptive suspension language consistent with state law. The presenter said the red-lined draft shows green insertions and red deletions; committee members repeatedly raised concerns that some of the new wording created contradictions.

Board Member Piazza moved to delete an entire paragraph under the subsection "firearms, knives and drugs" that committee members described as contradictory; the motion was seconded and the transcript records "Voting is open. Motion carries," indicating the amendment passed. The amendment removed language that had suggested a first possession might not be subject to expulsion in a way that members said conflicted with the rest of the paragraph.

Discussion centered on whether principals should have discretion to resolve some possession allegations before sending the student to the Disciplinary Review Committee (DRC). Several committee members described the district's DRC as an established investigative process that provides a consistent, nonbiased review, and said leaving disciplinary decisions to DRC reduces inconsistent outcomes that could result if principals made lone determinations. Other members argued deleting the paragraph removed a potential principal-level discretion to avoid placing students into a suspension process when evidence suggests they were not responsible for an item found in a bag.

Committee members also discussed how the revised policy reflects the state law change that reduced the presumptive suspension period for possession of marijuana from four semesters to two. The presenter and members confirmed that the DRC will review evidence and may recommend outcomes to the superintendent, and the superintendent may intervene or modify the length of suspension through the appeal process. Multiple members described the DRC process as the place the facts are examined and appealed decisions may go to the board.

After the amendment vote, the committee voted to adopt the JDE policy as amended. The transcript records motions by Piazza (to adopt) and Rose (to second) and shows voting was opened; it does not include a roll-call tally in the excerpt. One committee member asked that the minutes specifically record that they voted "no on both those" votes, and asked the minutes reflect that position.

What the policy says (as discussed in the meeting): The revised JDE aligns district procedures with state law that changed the presumptive suspension for possession of marijuana from four semesters to two; the panel removed a paragraph that committee members said was contradictory about first-offense expulsion. The policy retains the role of the DRC in investigating and making recommendations; the superintendent retains authority to modify suspension outcomes on appeal.

Implementation notes: Committee members said the DRC process is already in place and that principals generally must refer possession findings to DRC for investigation. The committee debated whether that referral requirement should be preserved or whether more principal discretion is appropriate; the adopted amendment removes the confusing paragraph but leaves the broader disciplinary process intact.