Beloit board authorizes expulsion officer, renews independent hearing officer and extends consultant contract amid policy reviews

The School District of Beloit Board of Education voted on a set of governance actions during its June 17 meeting, approving an authorized expulsion officer for 2025–26, renewing an independent hearing officer contract and extending an external board consultant agreement while routing several policy items back to the policy committee for further work.

Authorizing an expulsion officer: The board approved a resolution authorizing a board expulsion officer to determine pupil expulsions under Wisconsin statute 120.13 (effective 07/01/2025–06/30/2026). The motion was made by Board Member Brian Nichols and seconded by Joanne Roux. A roll call vote recorded five ayes and two nays (approved 5–2).

Independent hearing officer renewal: The board approved a motion to renew Attorney Mark Kaposius as the district’s independent hearing officer for the 2025–26 school year, with renewal consideration on or before June 30, 2026. Brian Nichols moved the motion and Joanne Roux seconded. The roll call vote was 5–2 in favor.

Board consultant contract: The board voted to extend the contract for Dr. Kim Earhart, who had donated an initial 60 days of service and subsequently provided board development and consulting support. The extension covers the 2025–26 school year; the district will continue to pay mileage and provide office access. The motion to extend was made by Brian Nichols and seconded by Tom Hankins; the motion passed 5–2 on roll call.

Policy committee actions: Committee and full‑board discussion resulted in a set of policy actions. The board approved revisions to Policy 187 (public participation at board meetings) after committee input; several other policies were sent back to the policy committee for additional review and clarification, including Policy 860 (visitors to the school), Policy 185.4 (policy committee procedures) and Policy 151 (board policy development). Board members asked for clearer language on visitors who are registered sex‑offenders, transcript handling for donated time and the committee’s role in routing policy proposals.

Voting context and dissent: At least two board members publicly opposed the consultant extension and the use of an independent hearing officer, expressing preference for board members to hear expulsions directly and questioning budgetary value. Supporters said the consultant and hearing officer provide experience, expedite legal process and reduce risk in closed‑session hearings.

Why it matters: The expulsion officer authorization and the independent hearing officer renewal determine who may hear sensitive disciplinary matters and how hearings will be handled; the consultant extension reflects the board’s continuing interest in external facilitation and development. Policy work sent back to committee will shape future public‑engagement and visitor access rules.