Board discussion flags questions on draft whistleblower policy; appeal route, definitions and union review raised
Loading...
Summary
Board members reviewed a draft whistleblower policy during first reading. A board member questioned language that appeared to make the board president the final appeals recipient and said the policy lacks a clear definition of misconduct; staff said the draft drew on model policies but the district has not yet sent it to the union for review.
During the board meeting July 28, directors discussed a first reading of a draft whistleblower policy and raised several procedural and substantive concerns, including the appeals route, definitions of misconduct and whether the district should seek union input.
A board member asked for clarification on appeals language in the draft: "If I read it correctly, you are the final stop in any appeals process. Correct?" the board member asked. The response from district staff clarified that the current draft funnels the administrative investigation through the superintendent’s office, yields a written response within 15 days, and then identifies the board president in the appeal process.
The questioning board member said the policy should be clearer on why appeals stop at the board president and whether the statute and model policy language could be incorporated by reference. The same director also urged that the district share the draft with the union because it represents a sizeable portion of staff who will be covered by the policy.
District staff said they had reviewed several model policies and federal program guidance while drafting the policy and that some wording could be improved by incorporating statutory definitions by reference. Staff also confirmed the draft had not yet been sent to the union for review.
Board members suggested the draft be updated to define misconduct more precisely, to clarify the appeal route, and to consider whether to incorporate statutory language or model provisions to reduce ambiguity.
No formal action was taken on the policy at the meeting; it remained at first reading and staff were asked to consider the suggested clarifications and stakeholder review.
