Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Background Checks Clearinghouse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Levy County board reviews clearinghouse background checks and debates exemptions
Summary
At a workshop, Levy County School Board members discussed how the statewide clearinghouse handles fingerprint-based background checks for employees, volunteers and contractors, including how denials and exemptions are processed and the district's legal and liability risks.
At a workshop, Levy County School Board members and staff discussed the district's rollout of the state clearinghouse for background checks and debated whether the board should allow case-by-case exemptions for people flagged by the system.
Board member Kaylee Wade said the district has begun enrolling people in the clearinghouse and stressed the importance of the checks. "I take this part of my job just like I do every other part of my job very seriously," Wade said, adding that she has visited schools and asked people who were not cleared to leave. She said the clearinghouse initially was presented as providing "no exemptions," but the district later learned some exemption and appeal processes exist.
The clearinghouse, established statewide, compares fingerprint reports to a statutory list of disqualifying offenses. A district staffer read a sample list during the workshop that included failing to report child abuse; sexual or other misconduct with minors or developmentally disabled people; felony-level fraud; adult abuse, neglect or exploitation; murder, manslaughter and vehicular homicide; and felony assault and aggravated assault. Board attorney David told members the system is "based on convictions" and that some people who thought an old plea or charge had "gone away" later learned it remained on their criminal history.
Board members described two recent cases in which people initially marked ineligible later became eligible after additional documentation or appeal. Wade said she receives only an ineligible/eligible indicator from the clearinghouse and that the applicant receives a letter explaining the reason for denial; the district does not see the detailed explanation.
Several board members urged caution about allowing district-level exemptions. "I don't think that we should be in the business of looking at individual cases," said Board member Cameron Asbell. He and others worried that discretionary exemptions would create inconsistent decisions and potential liability for the district if someone granted an exemption later harmed a student. Wade said she is "risk averse" and prefers "black and white" standards rather than case-by-case gray-area decisions.
Other staff members recommended time for the district to gain experience with the clearinghouse and to consult regional partners. A staff member suggested that NEFEC, the regional education consortium the district pays for services, could gather experience from other districts and help draft clearer procedures. Wade and staff agreed to bring updates to future meetings after additional training and a personnel conference in November.
No formal policy change or vote occurred at the workshop; board attorney David told members the session was for discussion and that any change to exemptions or procedures would need to be brought forward on a future agenda for formal action.
Ending: Board members asked staff to return with more detail on the statutory list, the district's current policy language about background checks, and a summary of the clearinghouse appeal and exemption processes as the district continues enrollment and monitoring of cases.
