Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety Volunteers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses tightening volunteer background checks, district staff detail portal and visitor‑management limits
Summary
Revere school officials and police described current volunteer‑screening practices, an online scheduling portal for fingerprinting, options for renewal frequency (board members debated 2–5 years or annual checks), and what the visitor‑management system flags during campus entry.
During an Aug. 12 work session the Revere Board of Education and district staff discussed revisions to volunteer screening policies, frequency of background checks and on‑site visitor screening.
District staff said current practice had been to require background checks “for the life of a student” under older policy language but that the district has built an online scheduling portal so volunteers can book fingerprinting appointments and receive clearance notifications. “On the website now under volunteering or fingerprinting…there’s an information letter that explains the process. There’s an online calendar. You select your time to come in and set an appointment,” a district staff member said.
Board debate over frequency: Board members and administrators discussed renewal intervals. Suggestions ranged from three to five years to an annual check. Bath Police Officer Dressler told the board the visitor‑management system flags nationally registered sex offenders and local custody restrictions, but does not run the same checks police do: “The only thing that flags out of visitor‑management system is…the National Registry of ****** Offenders,” he said, adding the system can be configured to show additional local restrictions such as “do not enter” or custody limitations.
Costs and logistics: Staff said local fingerprinting at the district costs $47.25 if performed in‑house; outside vendors can charge more and add credit‑card fees. The district said the foundation is exploring help for volunteers who face financial hardship to avoid limiting participation.
Special categories and coach volunteers: Staff clarified that some volunteers — for example volunteer coaches — are treated like employees for screening (enrolling into the state monitoring system described in the meeting) and thus are subject to the same renewal cadence as employees (five years was cited as the current employee interval). Several board members asked for explicit policy language that would tie clearance to passing a background check (not just submitting it) and to give building principals discretion to remove volunteers for disruptive behavior even if the background check is clear.
Law enforcement view: Officer Dressler recommended a conservative approach. “Personal opinion… I think it should be done yearly,” he said, noting that people’s circumstances can change quickly. He explained that the district’s visitor system will alert secretaries and administrators if a flagged record is matched and that the school holds visitors in the vestibule while staff confirm identity and permissions.
Next steps: District staff said they will continue drafting policy language to clarify whether volunteers must “pass” checks (not just submit them), the renewal interval, and how the visitor‑management system will be configured; they noted an existing “do not enter” photo list is maintained in each building. The board did not adopt any policy changes at the meeting.
Ending: Board members asked staff to return with a revised policy draft and cost/implementation analysis for the proposed renewal cadence.
