Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Safety Public Comments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents accuse district leaders of failing to respond to student safety concerns during public comment
Summary
Two parents told the Chandler Unified School District Governing Board on June 25 that the district did not adequately investigate or report alleged sexual misconduct and other student safety problems. Speakers asked the board and Superintendent Frank Narducci to take immediate action and to stop using nondisclosure agreements.
Three members of the public used the board’s three-minute public comment period at the June 25 Chandler Unified School District Governing Board meeting to press the district on student safety and on how it handled past allegations involving staff and students.
Katie McPherson, a longtime campus employee and parent, said she reported alleged abuse to Superintendent Frank Narducci on March 8, 2022, and that she has not received an adequate response. “I reported to Mr. Narducci that a man had allegedly harmed multiple students at Castile’s campus,” McPherson said. She told the board that only some students were interviewed and that only one student was interviewed by a forensic detective. She also said the same staff member had previously been a named suspect in an alleged assault at a West Valley campus in 2020, before coming to Castile, and that some parents were offered nondisclosure agreements.
Bridget Vega told the board she and other parents repeatedly warned administrators about on-campus and off‑campus threats, including what she described as serious harassment and threats that she said were not acted on. Vega said students were “spiraling, suicidal, anxious, and afraid,” and called for a superintendent with “courage, honesty, integrity, transparency.”
Both speakers urged the board and Superintendent Narducci to stop relying on legal responses and start hiring outside experts to investigate and to provide support to students and families. McPherson specifically recommended experts including Michelle Denault and Rachel Mitchell and asked the superintendent to be “an upstander, not a bystander.”
Board members did not take formal action during the public comment period. Board President Serrano and staff reminded the public that, under Arizona law, the board may not discuss or take legal action on matters not properly noticed on the agenda; the meeting’s public-admonition cited ARS 38-431.01(H). The board did, during later business items, address separate agenda items related to student services and community partnerships.
The speakers’ allegations include specific claims about individuals, investigations and prior incidents. Those claims are presented here as attributed to the speakers, and not as verified findings. The board and district staff did not announce any immediate personnel actions or investigations in response to the comments during the June 25 meeting. McPherson and Vega asked for prompt, documented follow-up and criticized prior use of lawyers and nondisclosure agreements.
The board’s public comment period for the June 25 meeting included three speakers; each had three minutes. The district’s legal admonition to the public, read at the start of public comment, referenced ARS 38-431.01(H) and explained limits on board discussion of matters not on the agenda.
The board’s next regular meeting is scheduled for July 9, when the district is scheduled to publish and take public comment on the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 budget. Families or community members seeking a formal district response to allegations raised during public comment may request the matter be placed on a future agenda or submit written materials to the superintendent’s office.
